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

Death: Should There Be A Choice
Arguments For Legal Euthanasia
1. Euthanasia is “inevitable, so it's better to have it out in the open so that it can be properly regulated and carried out. However, inevitability is never a good argument to propose for anything, as murder is also inevitable, yet we don't regulate it.
2. Euthanasia may provide a cost-effective way of dealing with dying people. Where health resources are scarce, not considering euthanasia might deprive society of the resources needed to help people with curable illnesses. Yet, this approach is repulsive and there's evidence of such actions going on in places where the practices are legal, like the case of Barbara Wagner in Oregon.
3. It is cruel and inhumane to refuse someone the right to die, when they are suffering intolerable and unstoppable pain, or distress. However, euthanasia is not a pain reliever and does not improve the quality of life. Pain relief technology has come a long way, and we have methods like using morphine, which is over 80% effective for everyone at relieving pain; also, we have opiates, which have been effective for chronic pain.
4. Human beings have the right to decide when and how to die. However, in countries where VE is legal, the quality of palliative care, end of life care, is becoming harder to obtain which is actually limiting choices rather than expand it like proponents claim.

Arguments Against Legal Euthanasia
1. It is opposed by all major religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Islam, and Buddhism. They all believe that human life is a gift from God, and no human being should get rid of such a gift.
2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia, than learn techniques for caring for the dying which undermines the quality of medicine available.
3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient and people cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted. Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of the action towards others, makes this theory a poor way to figure out if euthanasia is actually immoral or not. Kantianism, on the other hand, better explains if euthanasia is immoral or not, and better matches what the average person would believe, since in this theory we have human rights.
4. It is un-ethical for doctors to give such

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.

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.

Thanks for the debate, Salam. Unlike you, I'm an atheist, but I think euthanasia should be illegal. This should be an interesting debate.== Equality ==The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law to all people. This guarantee is replicated in Article 14 of the European Convention and in the constitutions and declarations of many other countries. We treat people with equal respect because of their status as human beings, without regard to their looks, gender, race, creed, or any other incidental trait. This commitment to human equality is grounded on the belief that all human beings innately have dignity and are worthy of respect.Legalizing euthanasia undermines human equality in two ways. First, limiting euthanasia to the terminallly ill sends a message that certain people are expendable and others aren't. In effect, allowing euthanasia for some people in certain conditions cheapens the existence of all under those conditions. This is especially worrisome as we expand the categories of people who can request euthanasia (e.g. saying the disabled should have the right to euthanasia implies that the disabled live an inferior and expendable life).Second, legalizing euthanasia suggests that human life only has instrumental value. But the only way to justify equal protection is by recognizing the inherent value of human life. If human life only has value based on its instrumental worth to society, a critical rationale for equal protection drops away. Why treat people with equal respect if we don't really believe that they're equal? If humans only have value based on their instrumental worth to society, why extend equal protection to those with low IQs? the mentally disabled? the autistic? infants with Down's syndrome? Alzheimer's patients?== Unintended Consequences ==First, if human life only has instrumental value (which it must to justify euthanasia), what's to stop non-consensual euthanasia? This is precisely what happened in the Netherlands: after legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill, the Netherlands legalized non-consensual euthanasia a few years later. This is one of those things where a slippery slope has been proven by the evidence (e.g. the Netherlands). Allowing consensual euthanasia quickly leads to non-consensual euthanasia, because both are grounded on the same justification (i.e. the instrumental value of life). Under that logic, if the value of a life is less than the costs of medical care, then physicians arguably would have a moral obligation to kill patients without their consent.Second, there's a real danger of abuse. And there's also the risk of doctors mistakenly killing persons without their consent, as well as the risk that the patient is being coerced by others (e.g. family members).Third, there's a danger about the message that euthanasia sends. Once early death becomes a medical option for some people (e.g. the terminally ill), it sends a message that early death is respectable for others too (e.g. the disabled, depressed, or those merely tired of life). The fear lies in extending the categories of people for whom euthanasia is available. If euthanasia is available to everyone, it cheapens the value of human life.== Corruption ==Euthanasia corrupts the medical profession. First, it invalidates the Hippocratic Oath, the standard principle for medical ethics. Euthanasia doesn't heal; it intentionally does harm. This completely violates the oath.Second, euthanasia transforms the role of doctors. Doctors don't actually perform anything remotely medical; they certainly don't heal. Instead, in euthanasia, doctors kill their patients, and in doing so, doctors santify (1) suicide, and (2) intentional killing. In effect, doctors become priests, granting absolution for a patient's suicide. Meanwhile, the state santifies the intentional killing of another human being. This isn't a role that doctors or the state should have; the medical profession shouldn't be in the business of santifying suicides and the state shouldn't be in the business of santifying intentional killings. That's something better left to religious or moral institutions.Third, allowing euthanasia could disincentivize the research and development of better medical care (i.e. why improve painkillers for those suffering if euthanasia is a cheaper option?). This slope could even disincentivize cures for diseases, since it'll be cheaper to simply kill people off.== Suicide == Most suicides are hurtful to those left behind. But sometimes, suicide is inspirational, transcendent, and the most beautiful and awe-inspiring act. For instance, Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire in protest after local officials humiliated him and confiscated his wares. He became the "Hero of Tunisia" and "Person of the Year" in Time magazine. His suicide led to riots and protests just hours after, and it culminated in the "Arab Spring," which ultimately led to the removal of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. [3] A bad suicide makes the world worse; a good one makes it better.A medical treatment isn't good or bad; it's neutral. And that is what legalizing voluntary euthanasia does: it reduces suicide to a medical choice. The question "to be or not to be" becomes a medical rather than moral question. Legalization thus removes suicide from our scope of judgment, and in doing so, it deprives suicide of its dramatic power and meaning.Speaking about the Eichmann trial, Hannah Arendt famously said that it's the refusal to judge that creates evil. Judgment gives suicide its social power, its ability to make the world a better place. Suicide shouldn't be a neutral act. If we don't judge suicide -- as either good or bad -- then the non-existence of another human being means nothing at all. If suicide is just a medical treatment, there's no room for forgiveness, because there's no room to judge the suicide as good or bad. And if suicide is just a medical treatment, then how can we convince the lovelorn twenty-year old that life is worth it? Or encourage the disabled to continue living?== Unnecessary ==First, euthanasia is unnecessary because patients have the right to refuse medical care. The right to refuse medical care is a better alternative than euthanasia because patients -- rather than doctors -- take all moral responsibility for what happens to them.Second, euthanasia is unnecessary because patients can commit suicide on their own. There's no need for euthanasia if patients can kill themselves.Third, as an alternative to euthanasia, I'd recommend legalizing assisted suicide instead, which has all the benefits of euthanasia, but with one key distinction: doctors don't kill the patient. This is important because it ensures that patients retain moral responsibility instead of shifting moral responsibility for their own deads to the doctors. Finally, as an alternative to both euthanasia and assisted suicide, I recommend making deadly drugs freely available to the public. This would remove the need for euthanasia or assisted suicide, as patients could simply buy some deadly drugs and kill themsevles without any problem. The few who take deadly drugs wouldn't need the blessing of a doctor, and for those anxious about how they'll die, a vial sitting on a shelf might reassure and quell their anxiety. There'd be no risk of abuse. And there'd be no intent by doctors to cause death. This is the best result and should be preferred to legalizing euthanasia.

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

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

My answer to your question would be yes, I would take a chance and hope that they don't die from it. You say Ebola kills 50-90% of that victims, which gives me hope right there. First I want to say I know my mom and know she would never asking me to do such a thing. I admit visiting her each day would be extremely hard, but how can I complain. The funny thing I just when to church on Friday and learned about complaining. I complain all the time, which is bad about me. Before a run I start to complain, but look at it this way. A person who can't walk is probably saying man I wish I could run. That's why we should be able to give thanks more. when you complain you only look at the negative side of things, and never look at the positive side. Now I ask myself would my mom complain about this disease? Yes she would, but I would be right there to tell her what I learned. Help her look at the positive side of things, like the wonder full life she's had, a good husband, family, and so much other things that this list would go on forever. Some people don't even get a chance to breath their first gasp of air, or 5 weeks after their born die. I had a chance to live and so did my mom, why should we complain? We were given life and now a medical procedure comes along that plans to destroy it. Euthanasia makes demoralizes humans and can take away our hearts. I'm so glad I waited till today before I posted this argument because if I hadn't I wouldn't been able to share with you some of the stuff I've learned. I believe I answered your questions so I'm going to start up two other argument on the topic. First I want to explain to you the types of euthanasia and cases that do occur in them. Passive euthanasia is still euthanasia except doctors let the patient die slowly with no anesthetics given to them. Active euthanasia is when the doctor puts a lethal injections in order to kill the patient right away. If you're for euthanasia you can't be for a part of it, Pick a side. Doctors kill patients because they ask them to and family members make the decision. Even if you would just accept one part of euthanasia, trust me other parts would be accepted. Now let me give you some examples. A persons father just got old timers and it's like his father is dead. He decides to use euthanasia because he thinks that would be what he wants. Many cases like this would appear. Do you think he should die because his son thinks it's expensive to keep him in a home, and it's like he's not even their because his father can't remember him?( I should of used a coma example, but I think this is good enough) Here is another example a person is paralyzed from the neck down from a car accident. He use to love being active, but now all they can do is watch TV, talk to other people, ..... Would you agree to put that person under euthanasia? If euthanasia is accepted it would just become more and more normal as time goes by. I remember a joke my cousin use to say which was" that's how it starts". This joke is very well true. I bank robber starts with a simple robbery at a candy store and continues to move on up until he reaches banks. For example a person who takes cocaine don't take it right away. It starts at weed and increases to cocaine later on down the road. euthanasia would continue to grow just like this. People with depression would start using this method. As society gets use to killing and would start to be thought of as good. Minds would begin to twist. My second argument is vary contradictory when used against doctors. People become doctors not to kill people but to save and help them. A doctor promises never to harm a patient and to never give medicine that can poison someone when becoming a doctor. Do they just throw this oath away after becoming one?

so, you hear the word suicide and think... jeeze. if someone is told that they are suffering from a terminal illness ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) they are told that "By definition, there is no cure or adequate treatment" Obviously not all sufferers from terminal illness want to end their lives because as the above link states: "Some terminally ill patients stop all debilitating treatments to reduce unwanted side effects. Others continue aggressive treatment in the hope of an unexpected success. Still others reject conventional medical treatment and pursue unproven treatments such as radical dietary modifications. Patients' choices about different treatments may change over time" But what about those patients who want to take the choice to die how they want. They don't want to suffer anymore, and they want the help of physicians,family and friends to help them end their suffering in a comfortable and peaceful way. I consider it cruel to keep someone alive who only feels pain, and if this involves the sanctity of life, that all life is holy and sacred, I don't feel that existing is living. They need some compassion, because they are humans and as fellow beings they deserve to be treated in a humane way, and die with a little dignity. http://en.wikipedia.org... which states :"Human rights are "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[2]. The doctrine of human rights aims to identify the necessary positive and negative prerequisites for a "universal" minimal standard of justice, tolerance & human dignity that can be considered a public moral imperative. " It is their own dying body, they are responsible for it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk... "more than 80 per cent of the public want physician-assisted suicide to be available to them as an option if they should find themselves in circumstances where their lives have become unbearable without hope of remedy. " which shows that although illegal, faced with this situation most of the public would also take the option to arrange the end of their pain. I feel the law needs to change, to allow people who are experiencing such indescribable suffering, can receive an ounce of control over their deadly and debilitating illness.

1. Right to life- People have a fundamental right to life. Just like we have a right to free speech and many other things. We enjoy a certain amount of autonomy. Just like the right to free speech doesn't mean you can't be silent. The right to life doesn't mean you can't choose to die. Having a right to life implies that you own your life. It's your life to do as you please with and if you decide that you'd pefer to go on your own terms rather than being taken by a terminal illness, you should have every right to do so. 2. Suicide- Suicide is a despeate act taken out in secrecy and leaving the people close to the one committing suicide feeling guilty and confused as to why it happened among several other conflicting emotions. By allow assisted suicide we can bring this process out into the open. Patients can taalk to their relatives about all these things, while pursuing a legal form of suicide. The process of suicide can be a lot less painful and a lot more open to friends and family of the person. 3. Terminally ill- A lot of terminally Ill have a very rough road ahead of them. They might lose their health their mind and have an extremely painful death. Allowing those individuals to commit suicide will only be cutting out a very short part of their lives which will be extremely painful and even dehumanizing.

Time for me to attack >xD. You say that there are some empirical example eg japanese people, Jewish suicide. How does these examples show that this is morally permissible? That is like saying since a group of people killed 100 people it is permissible as others do or , or saying like that a group of adults vandalised a house it makes it ok as they do it. When you said that's a terrible mindset for thinking ill like to say that i never said the "since it's illegal, it must be bad for some reason" Also the law is set up or the public. Morally permissable means the behaviors the public tolerates, like smoking and drinking. Since the law is made for the public, and morally permissable means behavior that the public tolerates, it should not be permissable as the law that the public follows does not permit suicide. You have evidence that one's life value can be negactive... It probely isnt possible as value to LIFE is Living not death. (Thats why it called living x D) lol. Anyway thanks for responding fast. =D.

1. Reasons for doing so Before we talk about them being justified, let's name a few reasons why people might be tempted to doing so. -Extreme depression -Poverty -Losing someone close -Divorce -Bullying -etc. 2. They want to do it Why would you want to stop someone from doing what they want to do? I bring to mind a scene from the movie "The Incredibles". Mr. Incredible saved a man from falling off a building. But the man actually sued Mr. Incredible because he was trying to commit suicide. If someone wants to commit suicide, if you stop them from doing so, it could lead to either even more depression, or a serious injury that would be far worse than death, like getting your spine snapped, then living the rest of your life in a wheelchair, speaking through a computer. ( I am not speaking bad about people like Stephen Hawking, who are in this predicament. ) 3. The Catholic Church I've seen all of my opponents debates, so I know that most of his debates evolve around Religion. Well, I think I have found the perfect argument in this sense, from the website Psychology Today(. https://www.psychologytoday.com...): "The Roman Catholic Church has long argued that one"s life is the property of God and thus that to commit suicide is to deride God"s prerogatives. 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. " This is an excellent viewpoint. Either way, God's prerogatives are in jeopardy, so it they cancel each other out. So which way would the life of someone who wanted to commit suicide go: to Heaven or Hell? Is the Church telling us that God would punish you for not wanting to suffer any pain anymore? This is certainly not the God I've heard before. 4. Freedom to do so If you have a freedom to live, you would probably also have a freedom to die. It's simply logic. If you were suffering extreme pain, physically or mentally, you should have the freedom to stop the suffering. To make it illegal to do so is absurd. People actually go to jail for trying! If you want to end your life, you have a right to do so, as you have a right to live. These are my main arguments. I will probably throw in one or two more in the Rebuttal round. Good luck Con!


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

Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: A Controversial Debate

Assisted suicide and euthanasia have been the subject of much debate and controversy for many years. Euthanasia, often referred to as "mercy killing," involves the termination of a person's life when they no longer wish to live. There are two primary types of euthanasia: active and passive. Active euthanasia involves actively ending a person's life, while passive euthanasia involves allowing a person to die by withholding medical treatment.

Supporters of active euthanasia argue that it is cruel and inhumane to deny a terminally ill person's request to end their suffering and that the individual's choice should be respected as long as it does not harm others. However, opponents argue that killing an innocent person is morally wrong, that physicians have a duty to cure and comfort rather than kill, and that the acceptance of active euthanasia could lead to detrimental social consequences.

Physicians have a clear moral obligation to their patients to cure and comfort, not to take their lives. The case of Bob, who contracted polio at the age of five and was paralyzed from the neck down, illustrates this point. Despite his doctors' belief that he would not live to the age of twenty-one, Bob lived a long and fulfilling life. If physician-assisted suicide had been legal at the time, would Bob have been a candidate for it? Would doctors have considered it better to kill him than to treat him?

Many terminally ill patients suffer from depression, which can lead them to desire suicide. However, depression is treatable and even curable. It is important to address the mental health of terminally ill patients rather than granting them the right to suicide. If this were to happen, millions of people could die, and life would seem frivolous.

Physician-assisted suicide in foreign countries has proved to be catastrophic. In the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, physicians were involved in 11,800 deaths, or 9% of all deaths in the country, in 1990. Half of these deaths were labeled as "active involuntary euthanasia," meaning the patient was killed without their consent. The United States should learn from the mistakes of other nations and think twice before making physician-assisted suicide legal.

Life is too precious to take for granted. People often look for shortcuts and easy ways out, but death should never be a person's last resort. Humans cannot be compared to animals, and we

Thanks for posting this challenge! I hope you will find it fun debating with me. Here are some arguements against euthanasia: 1. It devalues human life. 2. It can become a means of healthcare containment. 3. Medical care should not be directly caused in the death of an individual. Sources: http://www.euthanasia.com...

What you are saying is that even though Laura was suffering from great misery from her childhood, tried everything she could, but still should be forced to live because some people live in a fairyland where things will somehow magically get better. She suffered her whole life, for more than 20 years. You are stating that she should live more torturous life because she may have some chance to get better. That is absurd, since it may just not. There is no certainty in life, and it should be up to the person to decide to take a gamble or choose a safe way out of the torturous misery. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Death is not necessary wrong. Death is a loss of consciousness. It's as same as sleeping, but death just lasts forever. Death is death. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

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

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...

Self ownership and prohibition of voluntary euthanasia are at odds.If self ownership and personal autonomy are to be mantained, one must be given the right to decide when and how they die when it is within their ability and so long as they do not infringe on any other person's rights. This is a straightforward statement. Now I will provide responses to objections against personal autonomy and objections to prohibited euthanasia being at odds with autonomy."One does not have the right to self ownership."This is one of the responses my opponent could bring against my charge that prohibitions against voluntary euthanasia are at odds with personal autonomy. So what? We don't own our bodies anyways. But here my opponent would run into a performative contradiction. For if one can prohibit another form ending their life, one is not only presupposing ownership as a possibility, but also presupposes that a casual observer possesses more of a right to control one's body then does the actual user of the body. Cross-examination: What is the reason that an observer has more right over a body than the one who uses it?"Prohibition on voluntary euthanasia is not at odds with personal autonomy."This is the second option my opponent can bring. But to see how it is flawed, we merely need to analyze closer what exactly autonomy is. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines personal autonomy as "to be a law to oneself, autonomous agents, are self-governing agents." In this sense, personal autonomy means that one controls their own body. But how can one argue that not allowing someone to perform an action on their own property that does not infringe on another's property be in line with respect for personal autonomy? Imagine if I claimed to respect the fact that you own your house. You later try to replace some carpet with tile flooring at some point and I, upon hearing this, do not allow you to do so. Regardless of whether I am right in prohibiting you from doing this, I cannot genuinely argue that I am still respecting your property rights over your house. The same goes for voluntary euthanasia. It does not infringe on another's property and so interfering to stop it is not in respect of one's property rights.That will be it for this round. In conclusion, prohibitions on voluntary euthanasia, whether active or passive, are in direct contradiction to one's own personal autonomy. I will expand on specific issues that my opponent brings to my arguments in later rounds and also further elaborate on my first point when my opponent answers my cross-examination question.

I quote the Hippocratic oath (400 BC); the oath necessary for physicians and doctors to consent to to follow their profession: ""I shall give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel [...] I shall try to preserve life to the best of my ability." Since Euthanasia is legal in some parts of the world, it massacres this oath, and the doctor-patient relationship. I quote Canada"s Criminal code: "241. Anyone who counsels a person [...] or aids [...] a person to commit suicide [...] is guilty of an indictable offence." A dying patient may not be able to make a rational decision. (mental state) (Imagine) A patient may have said they want euthanasia when they were nowhere near death; however, when faced with death they may change their mind but be incapable of telling anyone. If there were better care for dying people, they might not demand Euthanasia. People might be pushed into saying they wanted to be Euthanized by family that does not want to care for them. The ending of a life is NEVER a doctor"s to take. Kill the pain. Not the patient. Murder.

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

Wow, sources and everything. Sorry but I'm not going to do all that work so I'm just going to comment on my view and from my heart. You're really going to compare compassion to murder? Euthanasia and murder are completely different ends of the pole. Murder happens for greed, jealousy and any other number of stupid reasons. Oh and not lets not forget, done without the victim's informed consent. Euthanasia is about ending someone's suffering from a disease that has taken their lives from them and yes, with their complete understanding that they are going to die. Not a big change for them, however, since they're already on that road. I'm not even going to touch the health care one since it's not about cost for me. A matter like this should never be about money and cost. Your number 3, "it is cruel... is right on target. Advancement in pain medication doesn't improve quality of life. If the disease they have is stealing their ability to think, to move, to live, then what good is pain medicine? Medications only allow that person to feel nothing while they remain confined to bed, unable to do much else. I don't think a person has the right to choose death while there is still quality to that life, but that person should be able to say, when it comes to that point, when I'm no longer able to think, or move, or live, then yes, please help me end it, don't let me suffer. And yes, it should always remain a choice not a coercion as you point out. All options, including palliative care, should be presented. I really believe that the choices people make might come as a surprise. As for religion, well, I've got nothing nice to say there so I'll just say that if a person's religion opposes euthanasia than it's up to that individual as to what he/she wants. If the person is willing to take the risk at their judgment (whatever that is for their particular faith) then it's their choice. Doctors aren't going to push death on a patient no matter what the studies say. I work in the field and have never seen a doctor push for one option over another. All the options are presented and truthfully, usually those options aren't presented to the patient by a doctor but by a social worker or a nurse who has been trained to present all options. How is euthanasia unethical? Because those opposed say it is? Because religion says suicide, assisted or not, is wrong and immoral? (As a side note, I am opposed to suicide in general and I'm in no way supporting or promoting suicide for those with non life threatening diseases.) Who are we to tell someone their suffering is okay, that they have to go on suffering, taking pain medications and being unable to leave their beds because helping them end their lives is unethical, immoral and will send them straight to hell. If a person is above the age of consent and has a life threatening disease that will eventually steal their ability to live and then kill them, that person should have the chance to have every available option (including euthanasia) presented to them and then given the chance to decide for themselves. If they choose assisted death, well then, it doesn't have to happen right then and there, but at a time when they specify, such as when the quality of their life has been reduced to living in a bed and more or less a shell of the person the once were.

To respond to your acceptance message, I do agree that it would be regulated, however I think it would be naive to assume that this regulation would be without loopholes or insusceptible to a slippery slope. My arguments are mainly sociological, and that legalisation of euthanasia would be detrimental to society. If we allow euthanasia to be legalised, we state as a society that life only has extrinsic, not intrinsic value. What I mean by this is that euthanasia legalisation makes a statement that life is only good insofar as we have use for it or if it benefits society, as opposed to the morally preferable state of valuing life intrinsically; it is good in itself and we should value it even if the owner is ill, elderly or a burden on society. According to most ethical theories it is beneficial to society to value life intrinsically, not extrinsically and so euthanasia is a negative step on the path to an Utopian society. My second point is that euthanasia is simply unnecessary. Pain relief is so advanced nowadays that pain can be relieved without resorting to killing. Why legalise something detrimental to society when it is unneeded? Furthermore, legalising euthanasia is not productive to modern medical progress. If it becomes commonplace for people to commit suicide when suffering from a particular disease then what motivation is there to find a cure for it? Finally, people's moral compass is very much influenced by law. For example, if tax evasion was to be legalised then people would feel less morally guilty for doing it. Therefore, if we legalise euthanasia then suicide will not be considered as immoral as it is now. The terrible consequence of this would be that suicide is seen as an acceptable potential solution to hardship, and therefore more people at the depths of depression will commit suicide. People also have an inclination for martyrdom; the sacrificing of one's life for the benefit of others. With no legal prevention of this, elderly people will feel expected, pressurised or simply altruistically inclined to seek euthanasia when they can. People hate being a burden and so will often opt to 'go quietly' instead of relying on their state or family. This would be a tragic waste of the value and wisdom that the elderly can give to the young. I personally know an old lady who often drifts into suicidal thoughts and, given the legal allowance, would not hesitate to be euthanised when she feels this way. However, she can also be very happy with her family and friends at times, and all this would be snuffed out by euthanasia.

Firstly, I would like to address the issue about such devices as the "Deliverence Machine". I suppose my opponent has accepted the definitions I put forth in Round 1, as he has did not challenge them. The definition of active euthanasia (which is what we are talking about) is when a patient asks their doctor to provide them with drugs that will shorten or end his or her life. Therefore, deliverence machines are not (by definition) euthanasia as no doctor is administring durgs that would shorten the life of a patient. The deliverence machine, and other devices like it, fall outside the parameters of this debate. I'd next like to ask my opponent about the Gallup poll he provided. Two polls are desribed in the article my opponent provided. He cites the first poll, in which 72% of respondents responsed 'yes' when asked a question about doctor assisted suicide. However, that poll: **Results were based on telephone interviews with 475 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 6-9, 2002. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ï¿½5%. Polling 475 people over the telephone with a 5% margin of error is a pathetic excuse for a poll. In the second poll: **Results were based on telephone interviews with 1,200 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 1997. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ï¿½3%. This poll revealed a three-way split in those who were polled. This poll was a lot more in-depth, as it allowed people to answer with more than just a 'yes' or 'no', polled 1,200 adults as opposed to 475, and had a MoE of only 3%. These two polls seem to prove two different things. The better one saying that euthanasia is an issue with has evenly split the population. My opponent is cherry-picking his evidence in hope of building a stronger case, unfortunatley the numbers just aren't there. I would next like to contend my claim that some people are incapable of killing themselves, and thus euthanasia should be an option for them. Firstly, people with physical handicapps (like quadraplegics) could simply starve to death or refuse life-saving medical treatment, which would kill them. They still have a way to die without resorting to euthanasia. Now this may sound inhumane, but I believe that this course of action in the long run upholds the santicy of life and results in less harm to society than starving quadraplegics would. If society allows intentional killing to take place, the value of ALL life is diminshed. Secondly, if we accept my opponent's arguments then his resoulution is still not affirmed, as he has only proved that people with physical handicapps which make it difficult for them to kill themselves should be able to end their lives with a doctor-assisted suicide, not every single terminally ill patient. I now have some questions for my opponents, they are not rhetorical and I would like for him to address them in the last round. 1) If euthanasia is legalized, why should it only be an option for terminally-ill patients? Why couldn't a perfectly person walk into a medical clinic and say "Hey Doc, I want you to kill me"? Does he have the right to die too? 2) Do you believe that intentionally killing diminshes the value of human life? 3) Do you believe that terminally-ill patients have the mental capacity to make such decisions regarding their mortatilty?