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

Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized as it encourages hasty decisions by terminally ill or severely injured individuals to end their lives prematurely. According to the American Life League, human life on earth is sustained by the respect and protection of every individual's life. "American Life League." American Government. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013. This perspective argues that legalizing euthanasia undermines the sanctity of life and the duty to preserve it.

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.

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

I have addressed your point in my previous argument. " 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." No one should commit suicide based on whims. You are absolutely right. However, if the person has not changed his mind after all the effort available, it would be merciful for us to offer a painless solution, rather than forcing him to get hit by a bus. Actually, allowing this on governmental level will help theses people. Since government will offer these people a painless solution to die, this will make many people to apply for euthanasia. However, these people must get help before such a thing can happen as I have stated. In many cases, suicide is the result of not reaching out. If euthanasia can be given after all the effort has been done, many will actually stop considering euthanasia like in your case. Few will still decide to go with euthanasia, in which case they will die painless death.

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. The united states is creating a drug used for the sole purpose of suicide in patients with terminal illness 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%.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. 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. 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. 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 nation 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." 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. http://www.drugs.com... http://www.drugfreeworld.org... 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. 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. 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.

You base your argument on an intrinsic worth of people. I disagree that there is an inherent dignity of the human person or a value to the world simply by a person being alive. People are valuable for their contributions at some point some people can no longer add to the joy of the world. A sick, dying, and suffering person may no longer get any value out of life anymore; they may feel like and be a burden to society and family. That person may want to end their suffering and not be seen in as they are dying an agonizing death, they might not want their family to remember them like that; it'd be preserving the dignity and maximizing that worth of that person to give them the kind of quick painless death that they desire. No one should ever make the decision for someone else, but if a person decides for themselves that euthanasia is the best choice no one should stop them; it's a matter of choice. You argue that deliberately killing an innocent person is morally wrong. I admit that it usually is, but there are some instances where it is not morally wrong. Whether it is wrong or not depends on consent; it is wrong to murder, but not always to kill. It is the violation of a victim's will to live that makes murder wrong, but if a person doesn't will to live then their life isn't being forcibly taken so it is not morally wrong. It is the act of violating a person that makes rape wrong, similarly it is the act of violation that makes murder wrong, but euthanasia is a death without violation. I agree that we shouldn't define a person by their illness or suffering and we shouldn't make a judgement about their worth. No one has a right to make a decision to euthanize another person, only informed and consensual euthanize ought to be permissible. The Dutch abuse that you mentioned is horrific and involuntary euthanasia should be persecuted. Everyone should learn from their example and safeguards should be developed to prevent it from happening. Your statistics about suicide are not relevant. Although somewhat related it is still a distinctly different matter than euthanasia. Furthermore people seeking euthanasia would need a doctor's permission and that doctor could refer the patient to help if (s)he thought the patient could live a fulfilling rest of their life with treatment. You gave multiple historical examples of different societies fearing death. You claim this is an expression of people's innate understanding that life is good and death is bad. Euthanasia doesn't cause any extra deaths, so even if death is bad euthanasia wouldn't be creating any more badness. But I disagree that our fear of death is because of any innate understanding of morality, it is just a primal evolutionary trait; life has to value life or it wouldn't bother to keep living and protect itself and its species. I do appreciate the irony of using choice or autonomy to chose an action that prevents future choice. I argue that we shouldn't try to maximize the amounts or choices a person makes or the time they stay free, what we should be doing is preventing an outside force from taking away the choice, freedom, or autonomy of a person. It is ironic but not a contradiction.

Hello, highway2hell! Thank you for sending me this compelling argument. I would like to argue against euthanasia. Your right to death is perfectly justified, however your right to kill yourself is not. Everyone has a right to die because it is an undeniable, guaranteed part of life, but we cannot intentionally kill ourselves because it is suicide in and of itself. In today's society, the majority of people find suffering to be the worst of evils in this world, however so many beautiful goods can be taken from suffering. How one responds to suffering determines the good that will result.

The poll that you have shared in your argument shows a great point. 82% of those people agreed with the fact that terminally ill people should have the right to assisted death. You said that a lot of people simply agree with what the majority think, however in the poll above, it does not state whether or not the people involved knew the other candidates choice or if it was a private vote. If it were a private vote, then your statement could be considered invalid for this particular argument. Yes, the majority of people ( I would hope everyone would agree with this) want rape to be illegal, and it is, as it should be. So is murder and robbery. However you can look at murder and assisted death as two different things. Yes, they both involve ending someone's life, but murder is done illegaly, violently, and without the consent of the person being murdered. Where in assisted death, it could be done legaly, non violent, and with the consent of the person who wants it done. There are terminally ill patients who don't wish to end their life even with all the pain and suffering they are going through. And that is perfectly fine. If assisted death is legalized, it wont be forced on the patient. It is only an option that is open to them. Yes , there are treatments for depression, which can occur in terminally, and non terminally ill patients. But we are talking about the physical pain caused by the illness, not the mental. Even though that is just as important. People who want to die are considered mentally unwell when there is no physical pain involved with that feeling. When you are talking about a terminal patient wanting to die, you see it more as they are in physical pain, and nothing can fix it. Terminally ill patients and physically healthy patients with a mental disorder who want to end their life are two different things. A mental disorder can be treated with medicine, and if the proper steps are taken to help this person such as therapy, are taken, they won"t die from it. They are not given an amount of time they have left to live because if correctly handled they could live for a long time and not die from the illness, but of old age. A terminal patient, however, can only be treated with so much medication, and they are given an amount of time they have left to live. They cannot stop death from coming. They cannot end the pain they will feel as the disease progresses. There is always a point to finding a cure. The people who are terminally ill now, might not have the time to see that cure. But as we continue to search for the cure, why should we let those who don't have the chance to see it, suffer? Cancer is an illness that has been around for ages. At one point it had no way of being treated, but now it does. Some cancers are still looking for a cure. Just because assisted death becomes an option, doesn't mean we stop looking for cures. It only means that until then, we don"t let the people with the disease suffer. We give them the option to stop it. Like I said in my last argument. It is only a guess at how much time the terminally ill patient has left. As for the video, if you actually sit down and listen to what is being said, you can see and hear how this illness effects not only the mom, but the family. Yes, the son said he doesn't want her to die, but who wants to see a loved one die? And as for the daughter, what she says is that she has been there through the whole illness, from the diagnoses to the time she is at now where she is bedridden and cannot do anything but talk. She says that before her mom's illness took over, they used to be able to go places, have plans, do things together that not only the daughter enjoyed, but the mom as well. And now because of the illness, the mom cannot do anything. What she was saying was not because she WANTS her mom to die, but because she doesn't want her to suffer any longer. I encourage everyone who is following this debate to watch the video. It is only 3 minutes long, but it is perfect for my part of the debate. You can understand all the emotions going through the patient and their family. She doesn't want to end her life for the solo reason being that it is an option, because if you listen to her speak, you will know that at this time, it is not an option. She is in pain. She doesn't want to live like this, she doesn't want to get to the point in her life where she is answering people with blink once for yes and twice for no. Terminally ill children have the right to make a decision about their health as well, even though a parent can override their choice. A child who is terminally tends to have a higher maturity level then a healthy child due to the circumstances. In the video I have linked below it shows a 5 year old girl who is terminally ill. Her parents gave her the decision to choose heaven or hospital for the next time she gets sick. https://youtu.be... Medicine trials are what i was referring to. When a medicine is released and in a trial period, it is only given to those who fit the criteria. Not every patient can get it. It takes time for the medicine to be processed and used in daily medicine. If the patient decides to end their life, and a cure is near to being found that can be used on that patient, they would be informed before they made the final decision to end their life. Sure the patient could have more time to spend with family if they decided not to choose assisted death, but if the patient chooses assisted death, they know when they will die, and they will know how much time they have left to spend with their family. In the link below is an article about a 29 year old woman who has brain cancer. In this article it tells you everything that I have been saying, or have tried to tell you. It is a great article with a lot of good points that I believe not only you should read, but everyone else as well. http://www.cnn.com... Mentally ill patients are not the only ones who cannot wait to die. If someone is terminally ill, they want to die because of the pain they are in, and because it is their choice to decide how they want their life to end. Sure not everyone knows when and how they will die, but in the cases of those who do now, and they now they are dying because of an incurable illness, why not give them the option to end the pain and give them the choice of when to end it? As for taking a terminally ill patient on a road trip, that is not a good idea. If they are at the end stages of life, then their immune system will have trouble fighting off viruses. At that point, something as simple as a cold, could kill them. It is also may be physically impossible to take a terminally ill patient on a road trip. If they are in a lot of pain, they could also have a hard time enjoying the things around them.

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

What I mean by requirements is the person seeking out euthanasia should not granted the request just because they are having the worst day of the life or because their spouse divorced or any reason of the sort. In other words the person would have to be suffering from a terminal disease or just have not intrinsic value. Religion is bound to be brought into the debate as a foundation for why it should not be legalized but I welcome it.

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.


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

Arguments for Legalizing Euthanasia
1. Euthanasia should be considered inevitable and regulated rather than hidden. However, this argument can be likened to suggesting that we regulate murder since it's inevitable, which is clearly not a valid argument.
2. Euthanasia can be a cost-effective approach to dealing with the dying, particularly where health resources are limited. Yet, this can lead to the unethical prioritization of resources for curable illnesses over those with terminal conditions, as evidenced in cases like Barbara Wagner's in Oregon.
3. Denying someone the right to die when they're experiencing unbearable and unending pain is inhumane. However, this argument overlooks the advancements in pain management, such as the use of morphine and opiates, which are highly effective. Euthanasia does not alleviate pain but merely renders the patient unresponsive to it.
4. Individuals have the right to determine when and how they die. Yet, in countries where euthanasia is legal, such as the Netherlands, the availability of quality palliative care has diminished, limiting patient choices.

Arguments Against Legalizing Euthanasia
1. Major religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, oppose euthanasia, viewing life as a sacred gift. While the separation of church and state may limit the role of religion in legislation, secular arguments also exist against euthanasia.
2. The ease of administering euthanasia over learning and applying effective end-of-life care undermines medical standards. The American Medical Association and other health organizations have highlighted that properly trained healthcare professionals can provide compassionate care without resorting to euthanasia.
3. Legalizing euthanasia can lead to ethical dilemmas, as the focus on consequences may prioritize resource saving over patient rights, potentially coercing individuals into choosing euthanasia.
4. Euthanasia contradicts the Hippocratic Oath, which obligates doctors to act in the best interest of their patients and not to administer lethal substances. Legalizing euthanasia could lead to abuses of power by doctors, as seen in the Netherlands where over 50% of doctors feel comfortable suggesting euthanasia to patients, and 25% admit to performing euthanasia without consent.

Sources:
[1] http://abcnews.go.com...
[2] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] http://www.life.org.nz...
[5] http://www.psychiatrict

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

I am suggesting that there are some people in America that should have the right to choose euthanasia if they have conditions that are considered terminal.

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

In conclusion, because everyone has a right to their own body, everyone has the right to suicide, regardless of the approval of anyone else. It shouldn't be contingent upon illness, for doctors do not have the authority to decide whether someone should live his life.

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

I agree with you proposition - in some states. What about other majority states and countries? Suicide doesn't necessarily imply wrongdoing. According to NY Times study, suicide leaves a person with more honor. Dying in honor is better than leading an unmeaning life. And also, who says that euthanasia is signing a dead contract? Euthanasia is actually signing a "life choice...freedom contract," according to Dailymotion. Again I am saying this over and over. Freedom is our right.

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.

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.

~Counterarguments~ 1. Stemming from my argument from Round 1, it's evident that I am arguing in favor of euthanasia by voluntary consent, and not euthanasia by involuntary consent (at least not in this specific debate). My apologies if this was unclear from just reading the resolution. Let's assume doctors do get paid for voluntary euthanasia, and in this case got paid a LOT for it. If this were to be a viable problem in the future due to fears of corruption, then the solution will be simply to not pay them for euthanasia procedures. With voluntary euthanasia, there could be legal documents or any other certified form of verification, perhaps like an audience of witnesses, of which before the patient will state that they are allowing their physician to perform the euthanasia procedure. The medical conditions of the patient should be reviewed by the hospital's panel of doctors, and a consensus on whether or not they should be allowed euthanasia can be reached. This will be to help prevent any corruption on the doctor's part, or someone else influencing from a third party. There are always scenarios in which we can think of where greed and malice trick the system, of course. However, this is true of many things in life right now. Undoubtedly there are many corrupt lawyers, police officers, businesses, and other people in high positions of influence. No system is perfect due to the nature of man, yet this doesn't translate into an argument against euthanasia. Lawyers are supposed to help the people, and police offers are supposed to protect society from dangerous individuals. There are many of each respective fields that are corrupt, but that does not mean we should stop both careers. Unless you can show how euthanasia will lead to great numbers of "falsely euthanasized patients", your argument fails. 2. I think it would be safe for me to say your argument commits the slippery slop fallacy. You stated that allowing euthanasia to be legal would entail in the future for laws to interpret it into something corrupt, something that will "control or manipulation against its people". However, you haven't stated what contingencies will lead to this. Your example of the Bush administration is a good example of a corrupt policy being CALLED OUT. Many people have discovered it, and rightfully damned it as unconstitutional and unjust. The famous scandal of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse lead to soldiers being prosecuted. In this case, the new "interpretation" of Torture under the Bush administration was rightly vilified.

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words! Same goes to you.Intrinsic/ExtrinsicThanks for clarifying. You make the false assumption that if euthanasia is legal, life is not only invaluable when not desired, but society only respects what a person can provide for everyone. This is not the case where euthanasia is legal, and would not be the case if it was legal throughout the world. Nobody would have the power to kill someone if the person doesn't want to die. That is still murder. So no matter how "useless" some people feel a person is, it doesn't matter. I'm sure loads of people consider certain people "useless" now, yet those people don't commit suicide. Why would it change if it was legal? You die anyway, you don't have to face consequences. The society does respect the human individual, the only difference is that the option to kill yourself (under ideal circumstances) is now available. Other than personal moral values, there's nothing wrong if someone chooses to kills themselves even if it's because they feel unproductive. People die all the time. People who don't want to die do die, and people who do want to die cannot legally and painlessly (for the most part).So not only is other people's view on your life irrelevant, but society most likely would not turn into some corporate working machine, only accepting people who contribute 110% to society.LifeYou're right, helping someone enjoy life is much better than killing them. But what if you can't? What if they can not enjoy life? But remember from The Netherlands, there are still steps taken in order to ensure this is truly the person's wish, as well as rehabilitation programs, anti-depression programs, health care, etc. - All geared toward helping the person overcome thoughts of suicide. The only difference is if they still hate life, they can escape it all, painlessly - which I don't see to be a big problem.You have inspirational ideas, and I do agree we should help people see how good life can be, but what if they just don't want to see it and just want to be set free? You want to deny them the right to be at peace and not suffer (in multiple ways) because you think they can be happy? "I think you can do this, even if you've already tried multiple times, therefore I won't let you do what you want to do"? Is that what you're saying? Why is "giving up" such a bad thing? Because you think death is bad? Because you think they have more to offer? Because you think they can think otherwise in the future? Because you think... Get my point? What about them? What about the person who actually feels like they would be better off not on Earth? You're trying to help, that's fantastic, but it's their lives. You're right, the person could be something (I love your example) spectacularly important, however with your example, Stephen Hawking had an incredibly intelligence by the time he was diagnosed with ALS, and was able to continue to use it and build on it without being discouraged very often. Although he did "attempt suicide" by not breathing, even Stephen Hawking agrees with me (or the other way around) that assisted death (or euthanasia) should be legal [1].Medicine"They could have survived..." 'could' being the key word there. If someone wants to die, they've thought about it, believe me. It would take a lot more than "it might take a while for treatment to kick in" for someone to want to end their life. Keep in mind, death is a 100% guarantee to stop suffering, whereas treatment is not, and you do continue to suffer for some time, whether you recover or not. To some people, this is a pretty good idea.You do (once again) bring up a great point with the motivation to cure diseases. You're wrong about the point of a cure. The point of the cure is to prevent disease. There would still be lives to save if some day we came up with a Cancer vaccination, and that can still be done even if current Cancer patients choose not to live through it. I would bet a lot of money that if people had the option to kill themselves if they contracted a bad disease, doctors wouldn't just give up and let them all die. They'd keep working for a cure. When people become doctors, they do so to save lives. They are the kinds of people who wouldn't want to see anyone kill themselves because a cure isn't present at the time. They would keep researching.SuicideI agree that depression and disparity are horrible. How is relieving oneself of that depression and disparity horrible? Suicide is an escape. An answer. A permanent answer, yes, but it is an answer. Your argument is basically "you can be so much if you don't commit suicide, so don't do it!" What if this person doesn't want to do it? Every person who has committed suicide has done exactly what they wanted to do - no longer exist. Both the victims of suicide and "victors" of beating suicidal thoughts get what they want in the end. "Death" is the lack of a functioning body and conscience. No electrons firing, no neurons receiving (I hope I got those right), nothing. Do you remember before you were a sperm? No you don't. That's death for you. Nothing. Last time I checked, "nothing" is a hell of a lot better than suffering. However your argument about the person being in the right mental capacity makes sense, check out the Netherlands - The patient must have been given alternatives to euthanasia and time to consider these alternatives. There must be no other reasonable solutions to the problem. So not only is the person offered help, they are given plenty of time to consider it, and even if they don't want it, it is most likely highly recommended, considering the second point, stating there must be no other reasonable solutions to the problem. Depression therapy is a reasonable solution, so that would at least be tried. If it works, great, if not? Why not let the person fulfil their wish and enter nothingness?Helpfulness in SocietyThe reason I brought up values in society is because you did, and this was the point I was countering. This is one little point, which does/would not turn into the only reason we would value human life.In your example, she does not know she missed out. For all she knows, she died happy, fulfilling her wish of death. The family also doesn't know, as she's dead, and they know she dies happy. "What if?" Is a pretty big question and can really be asked to anything. Abortion is legal. "What if the zygote grew up to be a scientist who hooks a satellite into Saturn's orbit?" Well, then that would have been cool, but hopefully someone else will, and abortion is still legal (in lots of places).Once again, what's so wrong with someone wanting to be put out of their misery? It's pretty selfish not wanting someone to die because you'd be sad.The doctors are not the ones who make the decisions, the doctors are the ones who follow through with the patient's decisions, if the law allows it. The doctors are not the ones granting life and death. The patient makes the decision to die or not.You bring up a great point with the Hippocratic Oath, however what's more destructive; Suffering with depression, pain, misery, hate, loneliness, and hardship? Or... nothing? Ending a life is not destroying a life.Thanks a lot for some good points, I'm glad we're having a good debate! It's not too often you see a good topic with worthwhile conversations.[1] http://www.independent.co.uk...


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

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

The decision regarding the termination of one's life should not be left to human discretion. We do not determine our own existence, and thus, we should not intentionally hasten our demise. An individual enduring considerable pain has the right to decline treatment; they are not obligated to spend money on costly medications that merely delay the inevitable. This would constitute a natural death, rather than an intentional act of self-termination. A family can gain significant insights from witnessing the suffering of a loved one, just as the individual can learn valuable lessons from their own ordeal. Through the way they cope with their suffering, the individual's loved ones can observe the positive aspects of suffering and recognize the significance of the pain we sometimes experience in life. To empathize with those in distress, we must first endure some form of suffering ourselves. This does not imply that everyone must endure a terminal illness to understand compassion, but as humans, we have all faced suffering at some point in our lives and can relate to it. Suffering can teach us to prioritize what truly matters in life, such as our loved ones, over material possessions. When faced with extreme suffering, trivial concerns like clothing and footwear become irrelevant, as the importance of genuine connections becomes more apparent. However, euthanasia conveys the opposite message. It suggests that suffering holds no value in life and that if we encounter it, we should surrender because we are deemed unworthy. Those who support a family member's decision to end their own life are also at fault. During a time when they should offer love and support, they are essentially endorsing the notion that a family member should take their own life. Although it may appear as an act of mercy, it is, in fact, an act of abandonment at a time when the individual most needs compassion and encouragement.

Who would be allowed to pursue euthanasia? Would you say only terminal patients would be allowed access? from there which terminal patients would be allowed? What if the 5 year old cancer patient decided he would rather speed up his death than wait it out. Would parents be allowed to choose to end their children"s lives? You used the term sound mind, what exactly does that mean to you just so we are both on the same page? My issue with using "sound mind" as your reference point for who is allowed to opt for assisted suicide it may unfairly include/disclude certain persons. What if the illness is something that effects mental competency? How far into that illness would the patient be able to make the decision? As you can see my first issue with allowing euthanasia is it is so vague a claim to make, when the policies would need to be so specific for it to be put into practice. Another issue is there are other possibilities such as palliative care. Palliative care is for those who no longer want to treat the illness. All care instead is aimed at relieving the symptoms to allow for as normal a life as possible with little to no pain. With just palliative care you are not extending life but you are also not choosing to give up. The three months more of life for these terminal patients could be huge. 3 months is enough time for a new treatment to become available. This means someone being told they were terminal and would not survive could have the chance to live if a cure was found, they would just have to be around to see it happen. Allowing doctor assisted suicide would take away that chance to be around for the cure. The last big issue that jumps out to me is the fact it is doctor assisted. The Hippocratic oath swears to do no harm, which any doctor performing euthanasia would be going against. How many doctors would be willing to perform the deed. I beleive it would turn into a joke much like the doctors one goes to to get a medical marijuana card. Doctors unable to perform well enough to make big money would see this as a niche to make a lot of money. Then they would be giving out diagnoses to allow to option more than necessary, just as happened with medical cards, because of the increase in money.

There is no good reason that suicide should not be legal. If a person no longer wishes to live that is their right. Why should you or someone else keep them from taking "the easy way out" as you have stated? No one else should have dominion over another person"s life unless the person is mentally impaired to a point that they haven"t the ability to convey a desire to live. (vegetative state). I work in a nursing home where people beg for death when they are suffering yet they are not permitted to die until their body is too damaged to continue. It is sad and diminishes their dignity. You claim they should not have an easy way out, Why NOT??

It isn't that I don't feel anything for Laura It is because that if you allow this behavior, sucidies will go up tremendously I understand Laura's situation but death should NEVER be the answer Literally try anything else but practically killing yourself? No. There are many methods of treatments for depression (Psychology, Meds, Counseling with Family) Death shouldn't be one of those methods Basic summary: Euthansia should never be allowed because it would cause a snowball reaction of tremendous suicide rates, There are many other methods for dealing with depression like psychology, meds, Counseling with Family Vote Reformist!

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

Rebuttal I made three arguments to support my contention: 1. The right to die and self determination My opponent and I both support assisted suicide, and the right to commit suicide. But as he mentioned in round 2, we disagree whether euthanasia is a basic right. He argued that "under an autonomy principle, we'd have to honor requests to be euthanized from all competent individuals". I want to explain to my opponent that he appears to be misunderstanding what euthanasia is. Euthanasia only applies to those who don't have the means to commit suicide otherwise [1]. Euthanasia is less about the method (how it's done)… but more about the purpose (the right to die). The dying person couldn't care less about who would euthanatize them or how. They just want to die peacefully. By denying them the right to euthanasia, they are essentially being denied the right to die… they are denied the right to self determination… they are denied the right to autonomy. My opponent argues that "Pro can't justify euthanasia through autonomy, since his advocacy restricts the availability of euthanasia. " The reason that euthanasia shouldn't be allowed to everyone else is because most people have the ability to commit suicide. As I mentioned earlier, euthanasia is about the purpose (dying) not the method. There's no need for euthanasia for the average joe since they can commit suicide. For example, a Winnipeg woman travelled to Switzerland to take lethal pills and die [2]. There was no justification for euthanasia for her; however I hoped that Canada would have allowed her to receive the lethal drugs. 2. Wasted health resources and public funds My opponent challenges my claim that euthanasia would "reduce waiting times and improve the overall quality of care. " My opponent didn't agree or disagree that waiting times will be reduced (which logically would improve the quality of care). But he argues that economic matters shouldn't factor into moral decisions. This is a straw man argument. I agree with my opponent that economic matters shouldn't factor much into moral decisions. But what I argued was: "To spend these resources to forcefully preserve the lives of patients against their will is ridiculous. " Health resources are scarce… By denying those patients euthanasia, you are hurting two birds at the same time… the patient that you are denying his or her dignity to die, and the patient that you are not providing a hospital bed. How moral is this? 3. Prohibition targets innocents My opponent challenged my arguments with straw man arguments. He said for example that "in the Marie Fleming case, nobody innocent was ever prosecuted. " I agree, but that's not the point. Marie Fleming's partner didn't kill Marie because he was threatened with 14 years in prison. There are numerous reports were innocents were charged for assisted dying [2] [3]. Other points a. Pain My opponent argued that pain alone is not the main reason for euthanasia. I don't argue that pain is the central argument of my claims. The three main reasons shown by my opponent are: loss of autonomy (93%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (89%), and loss of dignity (73%) [4]. This doesn't change anything. My opponent also claims that "we shouldn't change the law out of pity. " This is a clever statement, but it's misleading. It's not out of pity that we give people human rights and the freedom of opinion. I personally, due to my religious beliefs, don't support euthanasia, assisted suicide or suicide in principal. It's not out of pity that I think euthanasia should be legalized. It's 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. This is not about pity. b. Equality (1) My opponent claims that "telling disabled people that doctors are legally allowed to kill them but not allowed to kill others clearly sends a message that they're expendable". This argument is invalid because disabled people have the ability to kill themselves (through assisted suicide which my opponent supports). Euthanasia only applies to those who don't have the means to end it on their own. (2) My opponent argues that "equal protection of the law only applies if human life is valuable in and of itself". I don't disagree. However it doesn't follow that the protection of the law means the suppression of their right to end their lives. c. Slippery Slope My opponent argues that I "didn't address the slippery slope argument". He also doesn't agree that it's a red herring fallacy for this debate, which in fact it is the case. He claims that it’s an empirical reality that non-voluntary euthanasia will follow by citing one example. This is a fallacy. This is similar to saying that "All people will become gamblers after going to the casino because that's exactly what happened to my friend". I'm sorry con – I don't accept this argument at all. I can discuss it on a separate debate. d. Hippocratic Oath I was disappointed that my opponent brought the ancient Hippocratic Oath and not the modern one [5]. That ancient oath, which no one follows, starts with this: "I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius the surgeon, likewise Hygeia and Panacea, and call all the gods and goddesses to witness, that I will observe and keep this underwritten oath, to the utmost of my power and judgment. " You couldn't possibly believe that modern doctors follow this. The modern oath (shown in my source [5]) doesn't contradict euthanasia. e. Refusal to commit suicide My opponent states "If a patient can commit suicide, but chooses instead to have a doctor euthanize him or her…etc" I don't disagree with my opponent! For those cases, they should be subscribed lethal pills (as Con also suggests). We are not in disagreement. f. Euthanasia discourages research? My opponent argues analytically (not with empirical evidence) that euthanasia will discourage research. Without empirical evidence, you can only speculate. I argue that there should be no impact because the rate of euthanatized people is too small for this to have an impact on the research. There's no reason to believe that all, or most, terminally ill people will choose euthanasia (I certainly hope not! ). I also find it interesting that my opponent places moral decision above all when he says "economic matters shouldn't factor into moral decisions". I could also argue that "research shouldn't factor into moral decisions! " But what disturbs me about the "analysis" is that you're denying people their rights out of fear of some hypothetical impacts. This is irresponsible. It's more responsible to study the impact first before justifying denying people their rights… not the other way around. g. Suicide My opponent argued that terminally ill people "have an option of refusing food and water as long as they can communicate their wishes". This is horrific! To die out of voluntary hunger and thirst is the better option is shocking. In my earlier round, I showed a lady who starved herself for 17 days before quitting! I can't accept this argument. h. Deadly drugs available to everyone My opponent argues that "we should make deadly drugs available to everyone". We've already agreed that assisted suicide is the better option for those who can kill themselves. However, for those who wish to die but have no means to do so, this is not a solution and we're back to square one. Remember… euthanasia is about the purpose (which is the wish to die), not the method (how to peacefully die). [1] . http://www.ethicalrights.com... [2] . http://www.righttodie.ca... [3] . http://www.ncregister.com... [4] . https://public.health.oregon.gov... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

== Rebuttal ==(1) PainFirst, pain isn't the reason people seek euthanasia. The reason people seek euthanasia over 93% of the time is loss of autonomy. Pain is rarely (if ever) cited as a reason people seek euthanasia. [1]Second, the answer to pain isn't euthanasia. The way to deal with pain is through pain control (which is getting better each year) or through "terminal sedation." In "terminal sedation" patients in pain are put into a deep sleep until they die naturally; this is an acceptable practice that doesn't require intentional killing.Third, we shouldn't change the law based on emotions such as pity (which is effectively what Pro's appeals to pain are). An emotional response to a situation isn't inherently the correct response. Just as acts inspired by anger or jealousy are often wrong in the eyes of the law, so acts inspired by pity and compassion aren't necessarily just. Proponents of euthanasia usually bring up as many tragic cases as they possibly can because they know the immediate gut reaction benefits them. But laws shouldn't be determined by immediate gut reactions to a single case. Laws are general and need to be forward-looking; they're designed to produce the best outcomes overall. No law produces the best outcome in every case, and we have to be careful about letting our emotions play a role in determining the law.(2) AutonomyI agree with Pro that people should have the freedom to refuse medical treatment and the freedom to commit suicide. We only disagree about the freedom to be euthanized (which I argue isn't a basic right). Pro argues that euthanasia is a basic right as a matter of autonomy (i.e. self-determination). But under an autonomy principle, we'd have to honor requests to be euthanized from all competent individuals. Either we approve all acts of self-destruction on the basis of the who-are-we-to-judge principle, or we don't allow euthanasia at all. Pro's halfway euthanasia -- allowing it for the terminally ill but nobody else -- simply cannot be justified by an autonomy principle. To approve of euthanasia on the basis of autonomy necessarily extends euthanasia to all autonomosly arrived-at decisions. Thus, Pro can't justify euthanasia through autonomy, since his advocacy restricts the availability of euthanasia.(3) CostsPro says euthanasia would "reduce waiting times and improve the overall quality of care." First, apply this against Pro: with escalating medical costs, states acting as guardians of financially-burdensome persons would have incentives to euthanize. Pro says the state shouldn't encourage euthanasia, but that's precisely what it'll do, at least in effect, because of escalating medical costs. Second, justifying euthanasia on the basis of medical costs turns a moral question -- whether doctors can kill their patients? -- into an economic question. That's simply ignoring the real issue at stake in the euthanasia debate. The reality is that economic matters don't -- or at least shouldn't -- factor into moral decisions.(4) Affect on InnocentsPro says "innocents" are harmed by making euthansia illegal. But this is simply untrue. First, in the Mancini case, the Pennsylvania woman wasn't convicted of anything. Her case was actually dismissed by a judge because the prosection's case was based entirely on "speculation and guesswork." [2] Second, in the Marie Fleming case, nobody innocent was ever prosecuted. Third, there's little indication that anyone is ever prosecuted for assisted suicide or euthanasia, so Pro's fears are simply unfounded. == Equality ==(1) Death is not the same as a parking spot. Giving the disabled parking spots doesn't send a message that disabled people are expendable. It says nothing about the value of a disabled person's life. Parking spots just send a message that disabled people are disabled. That doesn't mean their life is any less valuable. By contrast, telling disabled people that doctors are legally allowed to kill them but not allowed to kill others clearly sends a message that they're expendable. And sending a message that the disabled are expendable while others aren't sends a clear message that the disabled person's life is less valuable.(2) I'm not confusing anything objective or subjective. I'm distinguishing between intrinsic value and instrumental value. I argue that equal protection of the law only applies if human life is valuable in and of itself (i.e. if human life has intrinsic value). If human life isn't valuable in and of itself, if human life is just a means for acquiring something else, then there's no reason to treat all human beings with equal respect (i.e. if human life only has instrumental value). Pro doesn't seem to understand the distinction between intrinsic value and instrumental value. It's a pretty standard distinction in moral philosophy. [3]== Unintended Consequences ==(1) Pro doesn't address the "slippery slope" arguments at all. Legalizing voluntary euthanasia leads to the legalization of non-voluntary euthanasia. The slippery slope is not just a theoretical probability -- the slippery slope is an empircal reality, proven by the Dutch experiment. Pro doesn't dispute that at all. He just says that non-voluntary euthanasia is different and therefore irrelevant. But it's not irrelevant, because it's the direct result of legalizing voluntary euthanasia, as both a theoretical and empirical matter.(2) Pro misrepresents Dutch law. In the Netherlands, doctors can kill patients without their consent. [Pro's 3] [4] [5] The conditions Pro cites are actually just the conditions necessary to avoid prosecution, even if there was an error or abuse. Furthermore, there's tons of evidence of euthanasia performed incorrectly in the Netherlands. [Pro's 3] Official Dutch surveys show a high incidence of clandestine euthanasia, suggesting that half of all killings go unreported to authorities as required by law. And in these unreported incidents, most doctors admit to not following any required protocols. [4]== Corruption ==(1) Pro suggests that euthanasia doesn't violate the Hippocratic Oath. This is what the Hippocratic Oath says: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I give advice which may cause death." If doctors can't give advice that causes death, they certainly can't euthanize their patients. The Hippocratic Oath requires that doctors heal, and it prohibits them from killing their patients.(2) Pro misunderstands my absolution point. If a patient can commit suicide, but chooses instead to have a doctor euthanize him or her, then that patient is absolved of any moral responsibility that comes from committing suicide. The doctor thus functions as a priest, taking moral responsibility for his patient's death instead of his patient. Euthanasia places doctors in a moral rather than medical role. That euthanasia requires no medical monitoring only serves to emphasize this point.(3) Pro doesn't against my point that euthanasia could disincentivize the development of better medical care. Instead, Pro challenges me to provide empirical evidence, but that mistakes the nature of my argument. I was making an analytic argument based on the laws of economics. To adequately respond, my opponent must explain why my analysis is wrong, not simply request empirical evidence. The logic for my argument is straightforward -- euthanasia is a cheap means of responding to patients suffering grave pain, so why research better medical care if euthanasia is a cheaper option? Thus, legalization disincentivizes research of better pain medicines. == Suicide ==(1) Assisted SuicideI didn't realize my opponent was arguing for assisted suicide -- the resolution said euthanasia specifically -- so I'll drop this point.(2) NecessityEven those with "locked-in" syndrome, paralyzed entirely except for eye movements, have an option of refusing food and water as long as they can communicate their wishes. The reality is that anyone can kill themselves with a little forward planning and determination. That fact makes euthanasia unnecessary. Nicklinson's case shows that there's escape from life for anyone who wants it. Furthermore, there may be a technological fix to locked-in syndrome in the future; it's important to incentivize technological advancement over euthanasia.(3) Make Deadly Drugs AvailableFirst, Pro's autonomy, compassion, and who-are-we-to-judge principles support making deadly drugs available to everyone. If someone wants to kill themselves, who are we to judge?Second, the point of making deadly drugs available is to provide a quick and painless death. That's also the point of assisted suicide, except my version is better because suicides are morally responsible for their deaths instead of doctors. There's no corruption of the medical profession, and there's no risk of abuse or mistake (i.e. involuntary euthanasia).Third, anyone can commit murder or suicide already, so there's no reason murder or suicide rates would increase. Murder is already illegal; that's enough disincentive for murder. Access to lethal drugs doesn't incentivize murder more than all the other means for murder. And access to lethal drugs also doesn't incentivize suicide; there's already ways to kill yourself available. In fact, available drugs can already be used to kill yourself. These drugs are simply more efficient at it, but that doesn't mean suicides would increase. However, I want to emphasize that my advocacy doesn't depend on making deadly drugs available. I'm simply offering two better options: (1) the status quo (where euthanasia is simply illegal), or (2) making deadly drugs available. I argue that each of these options is better than legalizing euthanasia, but I don't need to prove both to win this debate. As long as one of these options is better than euthanasia, I win the debate.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] Neil Gorsuch, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia[5] http://tinyurl.com...

So I have to complete 3 debates to be considered a 'true' member of this site. This debate number 2. Euthanasia: Back in college I wrote a pretty awesome report on this issue. Wished I'd kept it. Okay, not the point. I've worked in the medical field for the last twenty years and I've witnessed some pretty awful things. If a patient is dying and no amount of medical intervention is going to save them, why can't they have the choice to go quietly and without all that pain and misery. Trust me, death can be hard and I don't mean on the living. I know if I had a deteriorating, no cure disease I'd like the option of choosing a quiet, easy death but only once my disease reached the point where I was reduced to living from bed. I'm not speaking just from a medical perspective but from experience. I watched as my mother and a beloved aunt both withered, physically and mentally, from a neurological disease that kills very slowly, but before it does it reduces a person to a bedridden husk. It's not easy and that's where I think the real problem lies - family. They hate to see a loved one suffer and yet they refuse to consider death as an option even when nothing else is left. It's true we don't have legal euthanasia but a person can choose to stop all medical treatment. A hard way to go. And then, what if that person can't make the choice, what if the very thing killing them has also robbed them of their ability to think, to speak, to tell us what they want. It's left to the family and loved ones cling, always hoping for a miracle. Okay, I'm a little of topic, sorry but this is one issue I am truly passionate about. I would have liked to ease my mother and aunt's suffering and yet killing someone is against the law, right? It's morally wrong and I agree but there comes a time when death is wrong, it's the only thing left. Allowing someone to suffer, to gasp and struggle for each breath, to writhe and moan in pain is morally wrong. So though it may be wrong, both morally and legally, to murder someone in cold blood, is really wrong to help ease an already dying person into death? I don't think. Okay, as I understand it I'm supposed to be laying out ground rules and such but that's not going to happen. It's my opinion that no one's opinion is wrong. If you don't agree with me, well that's how you feel but I do love arguing such things so go ahead and argue away. I don't believe there can a resolution (not the way I understand it) and I don't much care who wins though winning would be total awesome sauce. What I'm looking for is someone who can argue the opposite side and have fun doing it. That's all.

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

I will be pro-euthanasia and my opponent will be against it.

"Stemming from my argument from Round 1, it's evident that I am arguing in favor of euthanasia by voluntary consent, and not euthanasia by involuntary consent (at least not in this specific debate). My apologies if this was unclear from just reading the resolution." - Yes I do acknowledge you are in favor of euthanasia by voluntary consent. I am not sure what I have posted that suggests I am confused. 3. My argument is that the patient who is ill and seeking euthanasia may have been compromised by third parties. Meaning for whatever reason a third party convinces the patient accept voluntary euthanasia. The third party may be a family member in which case pushes the patient to request voluntary euthanasia in order to spare the third party from having to deal with the reality of someone they once loved so close to death and in pain. The third party imposes a selfish point of view on to the patient pushing the patient into requesting voluntary euthanasia. So essentially it is still voluntary since the patient is the one requesting euthanasia. Not to mention the issue of the "Will" of the patient, if any inheritance exists there may be even greater incentive for a third party to compromise the patient into requesting Euthanasia. You suggest: "With voluntary euthanasia, there could be legal documents or any other certified form of verification, perhaps like an audience of witnesses, of which before the patient will state that they are allowing their physician to perform the euthanasia procedure. The medical conditions of the patient should be reviewed by the hospital's panel of doctors, and a consensus on whether or not they should be allowed euthanasia can be reached. This will be to help prevent any corruption on the doctor's part, or someone else influencing from a third party." -These legal procedures do exist in oregon where voluntary euthanasia is legal. "Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, be the patient's physician, or be employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to not suffer from a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statute restrictions. Participation by physicians is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy." (wikipedia.com) I do agree that these measure do in fact curb abuses of the system. However it is very plausible that a patient can perform all these legalities and still the decision is against his/her will. All these legal procedures are taken to ensure that the patient is seeking this request on their own accord, without a third party influence. The inclusion of witnesses unrelated to the patient in effect spreads the guilt. Meaning more people are involved, so a much more coordinated effort must be used to thwart the legal procedures, and if they get caught more people face legal punishment. In theory this will lower the likelihood of third party influence but it does not eliminate it. All these measures are bypassed with something as simple as a lie, and the patient will have submitted to the influence of a third party to kill him or herself. So even with all of these measures human flaws are not with out a doubt weeded out and deaths can occur against the will of the ill. This being true makes legalizing voluntary euthanasia a danger and unethical. 4."Let's assume doctors do get paid for voluntary euthanasia, and in this case got paid a LOT for it. If this were to be a viable problem in the future due to fears of corruption, then the solution will be simply to not pay them for euthanasia procedures." The USA operates on a Market System. Incentive is breed into every decision made by consumers and suppliers. If doctors were not paid for euthanasia there would be more incentive for them to falsely authorize euthanasia in which they were being paid for. So if a person discretely approached a doctor and offered a large enough sum of money to authorize the use of euthanasia on a patient, the doctor has much more incentive to perform a fraudulent euthanasia under your model of free euthanasia procedures. So making euthanasia procedures free in effect creates greater probabilities that fraudulent euthanasia procedures will occur, thus not remedying the situation of human greed and corruption. 5. In response to your statement about greed in all systems including business, lawyers, police, and people in positions of high influence. First of all i do agree greed exists all across the board. So since we have established greed will exist in the case of Euthanasia procedures lets move on. Now I do not think you can compare corruption of lawyers and cops to Euthanasia for a very simple reason. Transparency. You are absolutely correct that corrupt cops and lawyers do exist, I am sure there are countless documentaries and movies about this fact. But the corrupt behavior of cops, lawyers, and even businessmen are to some extent transparent. Cops have cameras in their cars that record sight and sound. Misconduct on the job can be recorded and used as evidence to uproot the corrupt behavior. If a cop makes extra money by trafficking drugs he will have trouble hiding the discrepancies between his income and level of standard of living. Lawyers keep detailed documents recording all procedures and motions they perform. They must keep them all on record for review by court. Any unjust or corrupt behavior will be recorded for find later. Even in Businesses, cooking the books becomes harder and harder since companies must release more and more information detailing their expenditures and sources of revenue. Discrepancies can be found through audit and the corruption up rooted. Euthanasia Procedures do not share the built in transparency measures that other systems have. Essentially once the ill person dies, so does the evidence of fraudulent behavior by a third party. Those pressuring the ill into voluntary euthanasia are off the hook once the beating heart of the patient stops. Since any system created to legalize voluntary euthanasia can not be rid or corrupt behavior legalizing euthanasia is a mistake. Since an indefinite barrier to transparency into that corrupt behavior also exists its seems dangerous to allow voluntary euthanasia to exist.