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

Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide should be legally recognized.

I intend to support the contention that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legally sanctioned, by advancing the following arguments:
1. The right to die and self-determination.
2. The wastage of healthcare resources and public funds.
3. The prohibition targets innocents.

There are additional arguments, but I believe the following should persuade the reader that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be lawful.

1. The right to die and self-determination

I would like to emphasize articles 5 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1]:
Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Bob Dent, who was euthanized, stated it best: "What right has anyone […] to demand that I must behave according to their rules?" That's the point I want to make. While I strongly disagree that someone should give up hope and be euthanized, this is neither my decision nor yours. We must respect people's opinions, no matter how much we disagree with them. People who are terminally ill suffer significantly. If they voluntarily, repeatedly, and freely choose to end their lives, we have no right to deny them that right. Doing so would violate their right to self-determination and subject them to pain against their will.

2. Wasted health resources and public funds

Euthanasia would free up doctors, nurses, and hospital beds. These scarce resources would then be deployed to assist those in need, reduce waiting times, and improve the overall quality of care [3]. To spend these resources to forcefully preserve the lives of patients against their will is absurd.

3. Prohibition targets innocents

In Ireland, Marie Fleming was denied the right to end her life. Her partner was told that he could face up to 14 years in prison if he helped her die! [4] A Pennsylvania woman was charged with murder for assisting her 93-year-old father commit suicide [5].

Rebuttal

a. Equality issues?

My opponent stated that "limiting euthanasia to the terminally ill sends a message that certain people are expendable and others aren't". This argument is similar to saying that designating parking spots for the disabled sends a message that disabled people are inferior. But this is simply not true… disabled people are the ones

Cure “Miracle cure” I assume is in response to the point where, in most cases, we can easily save the patient. You have claimed they think about possible treatment. But this refutes nothing. Patients that have already asked for death, but given cure for depression, stop asking for death. So whether or not they think about it is irrelevant. It has been shown depression, not the patient’s actual wants, controls their view on euthanasia for themselves [1]. Saving lives My opponent gives a weak case in life saving. Only 6000 people in the US (that are living) are organ donors. That is 0.002% of the population (using a 300 million number) [2]. And, euthanasia would not save lives this way anyway. With this low percentage anyway. And assume we ban euthanasia. And all of these people are cured. And live for another, say, 15 years. This would cause a continual chain of people dying and donating. Just like how there is a continual change in people dying and being born at once. Does this make sense? If it doesn’t ignore it. My above rebuttal makes sense. And its misleading to call them dying as I have proven throughout the debate nearly 100% of them can be healed. So it’s not really dying, if proper treatment is given. His second point is patient time. Of those terminally ill, only 40% of the 80 cases where honored. With 80 cases being honored, only about 4% of heavily sick patients get death. This means there are 1800 sick people. Most of which are quickly cured as proven previously. And, spread out amongst 50 states is not much of a burden, even at 1900 level. In reality, this is a very low percentage of people getting medical care so doctor relief would be negligible. Adding 80 people is nothing [3]. Depression The reason they can’t kill themselves because of depression is self-explanatory. These mental illnesses cloud logic. It literally makes them feel and do things differently. It is this disease, not “pain” that causes them to off themselves. Treating these people for depression would mean nearly all of them would decline euthanasia, thus negating the resolution. This means it is not really consensual. Same logic as the gay crowd *tries* to use. Instead this one works. If they cannot choose the outcome, why should they pay the consequences? If they have no control, then its illogical to penalize them with death which they really don’t want. My opponent would rather see a dead person then a living healthy one… Pain and family This assumes death is the only way out. As science, not mere assertions claiming pain is the only way out, notes, “The better response to patients in pain is not to kill them, but to make sure that the medicine and technology currently available to control pain is used more widely and completely. According to a 1992 manual produced by the Washing ton Medical Association, Pain Management and Care of the Terminal Patient, "adequate interventions exist to control pain in 90 to 99% of patients."[4] The pain objection is weak when looking on things from a scientific perspective. It means it is only justified, if you view pain as a reason to kill people, (using a middle point) about 4% of the time. Meaning banning it, on balance, would have negligible effect. It has also been shown people asking for suicides because of pain have a near 100% success rate as not only medicines are used, but psychological and therapeutic methods are successful as well [4]. There is no “stress” held out for that long, as we see above (if they take they non-death rout). Having a living person controlling for pain is not draining. Having a dead person is draining to a family. A “right”Ah, yes, but nowhere does it give a right to die either. Therefore your whole point is invalid. And, anyway, there is a right to life meaning they can keep you from dying. Courts have often times upheld these laws and supported malpractice suits towards doctors helping in suicide. Further, the courts acknowledge depression causes people to do irrational acts and, therefore, means there is no compelling reason to let them die. Verdict: no right to die in almost all of these cases [5]. Further, here is why my case on depression is so vital in this debate. My opponent agrees they are depressed, meaning he agrees there is no right to life! “Those seeking suicide would be legally entitled to be left alone …”[6] Left alone =/= inject the serum and pull the plug. Meaning depressed people have to be left alone. Therefore, there is no legal justification for euthanasia. Corruption My opponent dropped this point, therefore conceding it. Chilaxxxx Debate is a serous thing. Conclusion:Vote Con.[1] - http://www.nrlc.org... [2] - Data from here, percentages my own calculations http://www.donatelifeny.org... [3] - Data for how common it is http://euthanasia.procon.org... [4] - http://www.nrlc.org... [5] - http://www.jaapl.org... [6] - http://www.nrlc.org...

The person should be able to decide upon that, not an arbitrary person. Death is sleep, and it is just another way in which you can go about your life. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. Let's state Laura from Belgium as an example. She was an Belgian woman who was given admission to be euthanized after suffering from depression from her childhood. The con side is arguing that Laura should not have had the choice to decide on her fate because she was just feeling bad about their current predicament. Her depression may have been treatable, but it was her to decide upon that, not other people. One should be able to decide how to treat oneself, and viewing death as absolutely negative is not rational. It's a choice you can make. You will lost consciousness forever. There is nothing immoral or bad about that.

Fair enough, almost everything has loopholes, however exploiting these loopholes can be considered illegal, and therefore the person doing so is still breaking the law, something they could do now, if euthanasia is illegal. However I'm sure you brought up good points so we'll get right to that! Extrinsic/Intrinsic I agree with you, even if someone is not "beneficial" to society, they still have a purpose to being alive. However the idea of euthanasia is that it's not someone else's decision to decide your fate - it's your own. Unless you're incapable of communicating your feelings and thoughts, you decide your own fate, nobody is going to kill you because they think you may not be happy, or are not beneficial to society. It's the person's decision if they wish to stay alive or not. If I'm sick, tired of life, don't have friends, and just cannot find anything that makes me happy, we could still argue that my life has purpose. However this is really irrelevant if I don't want it to continue. Your moral perspective on my life is meaningless to me, as I'm the one going through "Hell," and you're the one who just doesn't want to see someone die.Whether or not someone's life has "purpose" is irrelevant, as it's up to that person (and that person alone) to make the decision if they wish to continue their life in agony or not. And as long as it abides by the rules put in place by the government, the organization that would legalize euthanasia, there would be nothing wrong with being put out of their misery.Euthanasia =/= UnnecessaryFirst of all, you have not shown how euthanasia is detrimental to society. You've stated that you consider it to be because life, whether sick or depressed or in a comatose state, is always beneficial to society. However this idea is simply your idea, which I agree with to an extent, as life can be amazing and wonderful and important in society's growth, but for someone to actually be beneficial to society, they have to want to be. Sure, there are heavy antidepressants, pain killers, and other ways to help people, such as meditation sessions, however unfortunately this is all irrelevant if one person doesn't want to be a part of this world anymore. Why are you so hung up on making this person want to be alive? He figures he's better off not being alive and seeing what's on "the other side" instead of hating his existence on Earth.You're the first person who I've seen bring up the medical point, and it is a damn good one, so thanks for opening up a new topic, for me anyway. However having the option to end your life instead of seek treatment isn't going to cause every single sick person to off themselves. Please keep in mind this is just an option - it won't be mandatory to kill yourself if you're not pleased with the current situation. A lot of this boils down to moral values, and if someone wishes to end it all, it's their decision to make... if the laws allow it. The main point relating to the disease aspect is that if doctors wish to continue tests to see if they can cure the disease, they still can, even if the patient is put down. 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.Moral ValuesThis should be irrelevant. 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. The people who give up easily are one of two things - and I hate being blunt about it but I kind of have to... 1.) Unproductive to society - they give up at the first sign of hardship, and if they wish to be in a "better" place, they wouldn't have helped society anyway. They're happy and we lost someone who didn't want to help us anyway. Or 2.) They've tried everything they can to be happy and be productive, and it isn't working out. Either an illness has caused them to live in immense pain, or a mental illness or depression has caused them to live feeling absolutely worthless, or like nothing, and they just can't handle the incredible amount of pain or pressure and just overall bad feelings.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.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. LegalitiesAs 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.I think I've brought up most of what I wanted to say in response to your arguments, so on to you! And thanks for a good first round. [1] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...

The response from con sounds very personal. If you are struggling the concept of euthanasia intellectual, then read on. If however you are struggling with this because of a family member, or close friend suffering with a terminal illness, I suggest you simply stop now. If the case is the latter, I offer my condolences.Rebuttal “Its extremely hard for anyone to accept the loss of a loved one, whether they"re a child they raised or a sister they grew up with.”While this statement is unquestionably true, it changes very little about the debate. The death of a terminally ill patient is coming regardless of allowing them a choice on how and when they die."Yet they call physician assisted suicide a "just, and dignified death."But as the battle of what"s right and what"s wrong continues, more citizens of the U.S would prefer having the ones they love for a few more days, a few more minutes, or even a few more seconds than losing them forever without a chance to even say goodbye."Well, often it is a perfect chance to “say goodbye”. To say goodbye while still in control of their own body’s. In control of their minds. Still in control."I think I should have been clearer in my reason of arguing, I can find no logical evidence of suicide of any sort being even remotely moral or justifiable."I am providing logical and moral reasoning for an individual to choose to end their life’s on their own terms. Individuals have a moral right to body autonomy. A moral right to make choices about their own body. Externaly interested parties can encourage, attempt to persuade the individual, but they have no moral right to override the terminally ill patient’s decision."The united states is creating a drug used for the sole purpose of suicide in patients with terminal illnessI know of no such drug, and you have provided no information about it. If, however, someone is attempting to craft a specific drug, that sounds like a good idea.Every Day more than 2,500 kids(12 to 17) abuse prescription drugs, Depressants, opioids and antidepressants are the leading cause of suicide by 45%."The leading cause of suicide is depression"Of the 1.4 million drug-related emergency room admissions in 2005, 598,542 were associated with abuse of pharmaceuticals alone or with other drugs."I see no connection between this and the question."In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration found that abuse of the painkiller Fentanyl killed more than 1,000 people that year in the US. It is thirty to fifty times more powerful than heroin. Fentanyl is an opioid medication. An opioid is sometimes called a narcotic. Fentanyl is used as part of anesthesia to help prevent pain after surgery or other medical procedure.But teens and adults are using them to satisfy a desperate need to leave the life they live, I don"t care about religion, I don"t care about body autonomy. What I care about is the fact the U.S is even considering making suicide legal to a "certain degree, at no degree is it ok to tell someone they have a right to kill their selves."Telling someone they have a right to do what is already a right is a little counterintuitive. I am suggesting that body autonomy is a right."What I care about is the message that this law is sending to teens all over the state, I"m not the smartest girl but I know a stupid idea when I see one ,and this is the dumbest idea congress could have ever created."You are conflating two issues. Teen suicide and euthanasia. If there were a relation then it would be worth talking about, but I can find no causal relationship, and you have provided none.Body autonomy is not the ultimate point in this argument. The point in this argument and is that this one decision is going to end up stirring a nationOK. Stir the nation. However, as I referenced above, 7 in 10 Americans support euthanasia [5]. 70% is a clear mandate. Section 443.2 of SB 128 states"this bill would make it a felony to knowingly alter or forge a request for medication to an individuals life without his or her authorizations or to conceal or destroy a rescission of a request for medication, if it is done with the intent or effect of causing the individuals death. The bill would make it a felony to knowingly coerce or exert undue influence on an individual to request medication for the purpose of ending his or her life or to destroy a rescission of a request."I have no issue with this wording."There are multiple way around this bill and flaws that could end up with citizens going to jail and being charged with homicide if they make one fatal mistake."I see no evidence for this assertion."Everything else I have to say is completely in my own opinion.Debate cant only be supported by facts because no one wins that way you have to appeal to the peoples emotion."To be frank, the only appeal to emotion I have seen is from you."I debate because I feel strongly about something, and I don"t care if people say I"m wrong, The whole purpose of debating is to open your side of the story. Its not about who has better facts or who"s a better speaker, because at the end of the day how much of that is really going to matter? None of it, because you still have to make a choice."I am arguing for choice. The patient’s choice over what happens to his own body."Put yourself in their families" shoes, their loved ones are dying of terminal illness, and kids are killing themselves. Wouldn't you want your little girl, or your big sister your brother or even your father to hold out for just a few more minutes so you can tell them how much you love them, and tell everyone that they were survivors not quitters? I want to fight to my last breath. It doesn't matter if I win this debate or not, and I probably won"t, but I want everyone to know exactly how I feel about Physician assisted suicide."How you feel is clear. What you may like may not be what the terminal patient wants, and as I have discussed. It is their choice, not your choice.ConclusionThe to control their bodys is the issue in this debate. While emotions run high for intrested family and firends, their wishes simply cannot overide the will and wish of the patient. The choices they make are for their own reasons, and not to be dismissed because of anothers selfish desires.Vote pro.Poll - Euthanasia[5] http://www.gallup.com...

Ok, so you might be into taking chances and hoping to live. I don't think you would though. Every day that passes will be worse. Nobody can withstand the pain from the disease since it's eating you away insode. Anyhoo, just because you take chances, it doesn't mean that other people would. Ok, so you learn about complaining [which you do a lot especially in English class. Name a one person you know that does not complain. Sure everyone has a chance to live, but there is a certain time of life span. As a person gets older they are more prone to disease and injury. they know that they don't have that much time left. If they want to leave the world, that's their choice and we can't stop it. Now my grandmother has Altzheimer's disease. That is not something that you should kill a person over. They can still live their life. They just forget a couple things. I would not kill my grandmother over that. You can't use Eithanasia for that purpose. if someone is in a coma, that is a different story. They can't speak for themselves, but a family member can. What would you do if you had to pay for their hospital bill, their room, mediation, and equipment. That is a lot of money to spend for someone who is non-responsive. If it has taken a long time, and there is no hope of them coming to, you can terminate their life. It's better than just coughing up money for them. Now the person paralyzed is a different situation. He can still respond to people. If he wants to be put down, we should respect his decision. If he wants to live, then let him live. It's not right to let him suffer the remainder of his life in a whellchair unless he wants to. Yes, if Euthanasia starts now, it will grow, but so will the opinions. It will become accepted if it grows. Then there won't be any problems. Doctors are to save their patients, yes. But do all their patients survive..no. Doctors are suppose to HELP their patients. they can't guarantee that they WILL be saved. There is always a high risk in performing surgeries. Docotrs do their best. Are you saying that no doctor has ever had a patient die? Basically, I say that if a person wants to be put out of their misery, then let them. I'm not saying that we should kill everyone who looks like they want to be put down. The person has to give you their permission, and if they can't do it, a family member has to. GET THAT STRAIGHT.

Rules: 1.) first round is acceptance only. the debate will start in round 2 2.) when you use a source you must paste the link in the debate 3.) Do not plagiarize 4.) no religion 5.) Be polite, don't swear. This debate will be on terminally ill patients having the right to assisted death. I will be on the pro side.

Well, it is clear you forgot to post, well it is clear I have made my point. I'll add one more argument, try and rebutt! Doctor's Roles Those who truly want to do their best for their patients by responding to a request to help end their suffering are forbidden by law from doing so. Many surveys of British doctors have shown that some already help their patients to die & risk their professional career by doing so. Doctors are also able to give pain-killers in such high doses that people die more quickly. This is known as the 'double effect' - if the intention is to relieve suffering, but the side effect is death. Popular Opinion 81% of the public think that a person suffering unbearably from a terminal illness should be allowed by law to have medical help to die if that is what he or she wants (National Opinion Poll 2002). Rights We can now choose our partner, when to have a child, & whether to continue with an unplanned pregnancy. We have the right to accept, or refuse, medical treatment. We should have the same right to decide when & where to die. The present law is based on traditional beliefs which are no longer held by many UK citizens & should not be imposed on those who do not share them. There, try and best that. (And don't try that whole "It'll slide into chaos!!!!!!1" argument, because assisted suicide definitively requires the patients consent and help.

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.

Primarily, I'd like to apologize for the inconvenience I posed to my opponent in not posting in round 2, though it is no excuse, some personal issues did come up. I'd like to point out, that while my opponent is correct in stating that no law is infallible, I can assure you that no law in the United States will allow a man to take his own life simply because he is unable to produce children. While I applaud my opponent for his in-depth hypotheticals, I believe they are a misrepresentation of what actually occurs in Oregon and Washington state. Take this as an example: There is a man living in a state such as Louisiana who is dying due to necrosis of his liver tissue. There is nothing they can do for this man, as he was previously an alcoholic and his liver sustained severe damage. He is a veteran in the war, has children and grandchildren, and has lived a full, happy life, but he is ready to die. He asks the doctors how it will happen, they say his liver will fail, followed shortly by the rest of his organs. It is likely this will be a several-day process. He asks how long he has, and the doctor simply shakes his head; not long at all. He then asks if it will be painful and slow, and the only reply given is that they can try and manage his pain. He loves his wife and kids, and tells the doctor he doesn't want them to see him suffer. Offhand, a nurse mentions that it's a shame he doesn't live in Oregon, he could die with dignity. He asks the doctor about it, and he tells him that he would have to live in Oregon to receive the drug. He says he'll move to Oregon, when the doctor tells him he won't live long enough to establish residence. Slowly, the man's health starts to decline. He gets thinner and thinner as the doctors pump more fluid into his system to prolong the process. He moves a hospital bed into his home, so he doesn't bother his wife with the machines. And one day, his wife and eldest son find him doubled over in pain on the floor next to his bed, in a pool of his own urine, because he was in too much pain to make it to the restroom. It has been only two months since his diagnosis. He moves permanently into the hospital in which he was diagnosed, under careful watch of his doctor and his children at all times. Finally, and one-by-one, his organs shut down. His grandchildren say their final goodbyes, and he dies in his sleep one night, with his wife at his side who was awakened by his screams of pain. He did not choose this death. I realize that was a deep and graphic example, and my opponent may argue that this man lived a full life. Take this as another example. A woman, age 23, a native of the state of Oregon is diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer, with only six months to live. Her grandfather was a doctor, and so she knows about the Death with Dignity Act, and what her rights are. At 23, she begins the process of hastening her demise. Months later, after a full psych evaluation, approval from two doctors, and the acceptance of her family, she is given the dosage. The family plans, the woman writes her will, all the while that fatal dosage sits in her bedside table and the woman's condition worsens. It looks as if she might not even live her estimated six months. One day, five months after she is diagnosed, she is able to get out of bed, and it's as if she was never sick in the first place. Coming from a religious family, her family proclaims it a miracle, and when the oncologist tells her that the tumors are vanished, she believes it. But the medication stays in her bedside table. After being in remission for three weeks she asks what to do with her lethal dosage, then brings it to the doctor to properly rid of it. Though she did not use the drug, it brought her peace to know that she would not suffer and die, and that peace was brought to her family. See, the great thing about this law is two-fold. One: it ends the senseless suffering of the dying; and two: it brings peace to the minds of those who do not wish to make their families see their pain. My mother has severe Rheumatoid Arthritis. While this is not a terminal disease, I know what it is like to watch a person suffer day in and day out, and not get out of bed most days. Do I wish her dead? Never. But do I wish she didn't hurt? Every day. Seeing her in that pain and knowing the stories I've previously listed make me certain that if I were terminally ill, I would choose Death with Dignity in a heartbeat. No one deserves to suffer, and no family deserves to witness their loved ones suffering. I thank my opponent for accepting this topic, and the voters for voting. Thank you

a. Definition I am very disappointed that my opponent claims that I've changed my advocacy, when I haven't. I can't accept this argument. I quote my first statement in Round 1 "I argue that Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized." My opponent admitted his misunderstanding in Round 2 stating: "I didn't realize my opponent was arguing for assisted suicide -- the resolution said euthanasia specifically -- so I'll drop this point." However, I stated that my argument "applies to those who don't have the means to commit suicide otherwise." So did I change my stance in Round 3 as my opponent claims? This is a misunderstanding. I argue that: If a patient can commit suicide, they should have assisted suicide (receive pills). (My opponent agrees) If a patient can't commit suicide, they should be able to be euthanatized. (My opponent disagrees) So in Round 3, I was concentrating my rebuttal on the second part where there is a disagreement. I will do the same in my closing argument here. I want to remind the reader that the purpose of Euthanasia is more about the purpose (dying) than the method. b. Inability to communicate? My opponent argues that anyone who can communicate their ability to commit suicide should be able to commit suicide. He claimed that they can deny medication, food or water. While this is theoretically possible, it's practically one of the worst forms of deaths! I already showed terrible example such as "Kelly Taylor suffered so much pain that she starved herself for 19 days." [1] 19 days of starvation, and it still didn't work. This can't be acceptable in any way or form. c. Underinclusive? My opponent claims that my view is underinclusive. He argues "If euthanasia is justified on autonomy grounds (i.e. self-determination), then euthanasia should be extended to anyone who wants it. But in Pro's world, euthanasia is only extended to those who cannot communicate" There are two problems with my opponent's claim. First, I never said that it should only be extended to those who cannot communicate, but to those who don't have the means themselves. My opponent is assuming that communication and ability are the same, and they are not. Second, I remind the reader again that euthanasia is about the purpose which is dying. I argued that because the others have the ability to die through assisted suicide, then euthanasia is not necessary for them (not do they care about it). However for those can't even take the pills, euthanasia is their only choice (Please don't tell me dying from starvation is an option!). By denying them euthanasia, you are denying them their right to die. d. They had something to live for? My opponent argues that "Lower waiting times has a marginal effect on the quality of healthcare, while increased suicides means more people dead, earlier, when they still had things to live for." But I ask the reader, according to whom? Who decides that they still have things to live for? Who decides how life is ought to be lived? Shouldn't this be their own decision? Who gave us any right to decide how anyone must live his or her life? e. Empower doctors? My opponent claims that euthanasia empowers doctors. This is incorrect, euthanasia empowers patients who want to die! f. Slippery slope? My opponent really disappoints here when he says that "Pro gives no counters other than simply calling my argument a "fallacy" and a "red herring," but simply calling my argument a "fallacy" and "red herring" doesn't refute it." However, his argument is in fact a red herring and I showed examples of how that is the case. This refutes his argument! Conclusion I thought that my opponent's conclusion is a perfect example of how much he misunderstands euthanasia. He states: 1. Euthanasia undermines equality 2. Corrupts the medical profession 3. Deprives suicide of meaning 4. Leads to involuntary euthanasia 5. The alternatives are much better However, my opponent is wrong in each of those arguments. Euthanasia: 1. Doesn't undermines equality. Without euthanasia, there's no equality and those patients are oppressed 2. Doesn't corrupt the medical profession. It's consistent with the modern Hippocratic Oath (See round 2) 3. Doesn't deprive suicide of meaning 4. Is different than involuntary euthanasia 5. There are no alternatives (unless you want them to starve themselves for 19 days or more!) I ask the reader to examine the evidence. I will highlight the main reasons that euthanasia should be legalized: 1. Patients have the right to die and self determination according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2]. Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression 2. Wasted health resources and public funds. Health resources are scarce. To subject patients to pain, agony, loss of autonomy against their will, while at the same time preventing others from accessing these resources is absolutely ridiculous! 3. I would like to reiterate what I said earlier. "I personally, due to my religious beliefs, don't support euthanasia, assisted suicide or suicide in principal. [But I think euthanasia should be legalized] because I realize that I don't have any right to deny them their rights, even if I disagree with what they decide to do." I want to thank my opponent for a very good debate. I truly enjoyed his arguments, even though I haven't changed my stance on the subject. Thank you Con. [1] http://listverse.com...[2] http://www.un.org...


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

Euthanasia ought to be lawful.

You argue that individuals should have the autonomy to decide if they should continue living or end their life, yet those who are unwell and feel they lack the resilience to carry on may not possess the capacity to make a morally sound choice. As highlighted by Dave Anderson in his list of the Top 10 reasons Euthanasia should be prohibited, "In a study carried out in Oregon, USA, 66% of individuals who sought euthanasia did so due to not wanting to be a liability to their loved ones." For these individuals, their concern is not about their will to live or die, but about being a burden to their family members who, irrespective of the circumstances, will tend to their needs out of pure affection. Similar to how a mother would never consider her child a burden and would strive to provide the best care possible as long as they are alive.

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

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.

Contention 1: Unreported and Euthanasia without one's consent. A) My opponent is mistaken. Euthanasia without one's consent does include BOTH Non Voluntary Euthanasia and Involunatary Euthanasia. So my opponent is indeed incorrect at that point. The 1.7% is for the Dutch. There is reason for these facts though. It goes to show just how bad the way things are in these foreign nations that have legalized euthanasia and they have lead to these types of arguments. It is a simple impact to show just show bad it is when you legalize euthanasia and even with the proper safeguards we can see that it leads to Non Voluntary Euthanizing of children as seen in boht the Neatherlands and Beligium it may seem bogus, but facts speak for themselves. We can see that even if the US legalizes we will follow soon. B) J. Pereira is a valid source as he is a biotech which means that he is an expert in the feild as he actually understands how euthanasia works and considering that he has a PhD in genetics he once again knows how exactly this works making this a better source and concidering that I have provided multiple sources here for this we can still see that's it's valid as my opponent hasn't actually provided a source to show that it's valid. Even if you do not take J Pereira as a valid source he still had several soveral sources that show that the source is creditable from within the reserch that he has done. When it came to Terri Schiavo she did indeed recover. As a matter of fact here is a video showing that she was a fully responsive and functional human being before euthanasia took it's full effect and killed her. () Contention 2: Slippery SLope Argument. I will bring this up as I have before. THis is the name of the argument given to it by the author of the argument. The person is Ezekiel Emmanuel who is a well known American bioethicist who has come out with this theory. In this novel, The Ends of Human Life, he goes into an argument against Euthanasia where he uses AIDs patients as an example. Where he not only blatently attacked euthanasia as murder, but as morally unjustified. "To know whether it is ethical to turn off the respirator for a quadriplegic patient requires conceptions of personal identity, a worthy human life, murder and suicide; to know how much information a doctor must provide a cancer patient to obtain proper informed consent for an experimental therapy requires conceptions of autonomy, coercion and the public good and how to balance these values; to know whether to break the AIDS patient’s confidentiality and inform his wife requires a framework for weighing the relative importance of competing individual rights as well as the public good. " As we can see my opponent doesn't actually refute any of my arguments here as he only refute's the argument as a fallacy due to a misconception of it's name. So once more I extend it all the way across the board. Contention 3: Self-Ownership and sickness. Okay so sorry if I didn't see two sentences as a refutation of 3 valid points. However it's true, because we can see that the loss of just one person is felt by the community and we can see that the collective socity needs the person more than not and it's really selfish if that one person decides to kill themselves without thinking of the collective group as a whole. My opponent also dropped a very key point and that was the self-dettermination argument that they should only kill themselves if they're in the right state of mind, but if you want to kill yourself you are in the wrong state of mind. He's also dropped palliative specialist argument showing that the numbers of people seeing them has dropped significantly.

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...

As someone in favor of physician assisted suicide, physician assisted death, ie murder, is a horrible idea. Murder is illegal in the U.S, and therefor physician assisted death would be unlawful do to the broad nature of the topic at hand.[1] [1]http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Nearly three quarters of British people are in favour of legalising assisted suicide, almost all said they could imagine opting for assisted suicide themselves if they ever suffered from an incurable illness, serious disability or uncontrollable pain [1]. The reason the majority support assisted death is because they only think of their self, they probably think it is comforting having that choice just in case. But they have not really thought it through and probably just think they would be gaining a right. They may even think that such a belief shows they are more compassionate than others. People think those who want rape to be legal are rapists etc, even though making rape legal would significantly reduce rape as women would be more responsible. People are usually more bothered about how they are perceived than implications of a law. People already have the right to refuse treatment, they don't have to be hooked to a life support machine and suffer or even take medication. They can have a dignified death already [2]. Deathwithdignity.org says "The patient"s primary objective is not to end an otherwise open-ended span of life, but to find dignity in an already impending exit from this world. They"re participating in an act to shorten the agony of their final hours, not killing themselves; cancer (or another common underlying condition) is killing them." However a dignified death can be achieved without killing yourself. And how can killing yourself make you worthy of respect? The answer is it can't. Fearful people will tell you anything. The message sent to people suffering with depression is that suicide is okay sometimes. If you ask anybody if they think suicide should be legal, the answer will be no way. So why do so many believe in assisted death? It is because they are told that Physician-assisted dying isn"t suicide legally, morally or ethically, and that patients are already dying and therefore are not choosing death over life but one form of death over another. [3] These are yet more lies, of course drinking something that you know will kill you is suicide whether you are terminally ill or not. It is also wrong to discriminate by allowing some people but not others the right to kill them self. Everyone is equal and should be treated as such. Supporters of assisted suicide may tell you that paralyzed people can't kill themself, and should be given the same "right" as other people even though no-one has a right to commit suicide. What we should do is encourage people to enjoy the life they have, and not give up hope or be miserable or waste their life. If cancer patients kill themselves rather than undergo treatment, then medical research to cure cancer is unnecessary and will not receive much funding. Suicide laws remove incentives to improve life, this is more important than trying to stop pain. It is true at one point cancer had no way of being treated, and people who could be saved will die because of an assisted death law. This is one reason why we shouldn't give up on hope. There are people who are terminally ill who can live many years longer than predicted and even those with weeks to live can enjoy life, see video below In the video I showed in the previous round the son makes his mum feel bad by saying he doesn't feel happy progressing in life because her mum can't progress. Her daughter makes her feel worthless and a burden too, she says she doesn't want to see her mum suffer but instead of making her feel better she says she'd like her mum to die. Assisted death law causes family members to think they don't have to be strong for someone, and make it possible to make someone feel worthless without nobody saying a bad word to them. The mother's fear of blinking for yes or no is unrealistic like all fears are. It is wrong to enable people to reduce the quality of someone's life, so that it can end sooner in order to inherit something sooner or make life easier. Just because someone has a person's permission to do something doesn't mean they should. The little girl in the video made a choice based on a lie (just like those told they'll have a dignified death) about going to heaven and having to wait to see her parents in happy land. If children who are terminally ill can have assisted suicide, what's next? Will everyone be allowed to kill themselves? Will you even have a choice? Spending more time with family is better than dying sooner, you may die before a cure is found. I still don't know why it is so important to know exactly how long you have to spend with family and friends. Family members and friends will not be comforted, they will find it harder to enjoy their own life because they'll be counting the days down and have less time with someone they love. They'll feel guilty enjoying life when they could be spending time with someone with little time left. Assisted suicide means a lot of people will witness someone close die, it is unlikely they'd witness someone die if it were illegal, The 29 year old woman in your sources says "My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don't deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?" - Clearly, she thinks that anyone who opposes assisted suicide wants her to suffer. The reality is no-one is making any decision to make her suffer, or saying she should suffer, people who oppose assisted suicide are just against her killing herself because they think she should enjoy life, and set an example to others i.e. show others that life is worth living. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2] http://www.nhs.uk... [3] https://www.deathwithdignity.org...

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

The person should be able to decide upon that, not an arbitrary person. Death is sleep, and it is just another way in which you can go about your life. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. Let's state Laura from Belgium as an example. She was an Belgian woman who was given admission to be euthanized after suffering from depression from her childhood. The con side is arguing that Laura should not have had the choice to decide on her fate because she was just feeling bad about their current predicament. Her depression may have been treatable, but it was her to decide upon that, not other people. One should be able to decide how to treat oneself, and viewing death as absolutely negative is not rational. It's a choice you can make. You will lost consciousness forever. There is nothing immoral or bad about that.

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.

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?