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

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Should be Legal in the United States

You raise an important argument, but the right to life inherently includes the right to control one's own life. Individuals should have the autonomy to make decisions regarding their own lives, including the choice to end their suffering. Denying them this option can be seen as a form of cruelty. Therefore, both assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legally recognized and available.

Allowing people to commit euthanasia would not only let them have what they want, it would free valuable resources to treat people who want to live.

Thank you for your wonderful argument. "VALUE: Relief of suffering; suffering is generally accepted as an awful phenomenon. The individual is hurt in some way, unjustly, and simple morality holds that relieving pain is a good, moral, just thing to do." Well, then my VALUE: Deprivation of pleasure; pleasure is generally accepted as an awesome phenomenon. The individual is gratified in some way, and simple morality holds that allowing people to live their lives in pleasure is a good, moral, just thing to do. A. Counter-Arguments "AI. To live is to suffer." My opponent's first argument is that to live is to suffer. True, life sometimes includes suffering; however, life also includes pleasure, which cannot be ignored. My opponent's first source says, "Faith, art, love, friendship and mental attitudes are among the ways of minimizing and overcoming the cruelty of the world." Death is not listed. Suffering can be overcome by the above things, and many people have done so already. To deprive someone of their life that is no longer filled with suffering, but instead filled with pleasure, would be unjust. "In life, there is nothing we can truly accomplish..." However, this does not actually add anything to my opponent's argument. Just because life makes no real impact on anything, doesn't mean that death is preferable. One has even less influence in death, and death is eternal, while life is finite. Life is the only chance to actually enjoy anything. To deprive somebody of this one opportunity to impact the lives of others would be unjust. "In life, there is no real pleasure..." In the same light, there is no real suffering. We are simply manipulated by chemical hormones to perceive suffering. "Pain and pleasure, in the broad sense of these words, are respectively the negative and positive affects, or hedonic tones, or valences that psychologists often identify as basic in our emotional lives. The evolutionary role of physical and mental suffering, through natural selection, is primordial: it warns of threats, motivates coping (fight or flight, escapism), and reinforces negatively certain behaviors (see punishment, aversives). Despite its initial disrupting nature, suffering contributes to the organization of meaning in an individual's world and psyche. In turn, meaning determines how individuals or societies experience and deal with suffering." [1] This suffering comes from danger to subsistence. The nervous system simply sends pulses of pain to the brain to warn it of threats to the body, such as an attacking dog or a flame on the shoe. And so, both pleasure and pain are simply caused by hormones, so to dismiss one as meaningless is to dismiss the other, as well. However, because we feel both pleasure and pain as very real, they still allow us to experience, and hope to experience more pleasure than pain. "So, life is not good." My opponent only draws this conclusion from a completely pessimistic way, overlooking pleasure and calling it hormones, while aggrandizing suffering. "Philosophers, religious and secular, have further noted that life is but perennial, inevitable suffering..." The satisfaction comes from those hormones my opponent previously mentioned. As does the suffering. Sometimes, life is bad. Sometimes, life is good. The goal of life is to make life good more often than bad. If you want evidence, listen to Video 1 http://www.youtube.com... (3:15), although you really should listen to the whole thing). "But if it doesn't work out, there'll never be any doubt that the pleasure was worth all the pain." - Jimmy Buffett I ask you, my opponent, if somebody just declared that all of the pain in the rest of their life would be worth the pleasure of what he was about to do, would murdering that man be just? "AII. Ending suffering is morally upright..." Again, I can turn this around so that it negates itself when it comes to life: Ending pleasure is morally wrong. The ending of pleasure is inherently wrong. While pleasure may distract from other duties, pleasure is a gift to be enjoyed. General morality holds that pleasure and enjoyment should be maximized. Elimination of pleasure is a horrible step in moral wrongness. "AIII. To murder is to relieve life, and therefore to relieve suffering..." I wave my magic wand, and: To murder is to end life, and therefore to end pleasure. To relieve pleasure is generally a horrible, despicable, terrible, unjust thing to do. Therefore, the resolution is negated. It should be fairly obvious by now that pleasure and suffering are two sides of the coin of life, and one generally cannot be completely eliminated without eliminating the other, although most consider the pleasure to be worth the pain. (See Jimmy Buffett.) As for my opponent's syllogism, the only problem is that it assumes that life is suffering, while life is actually a combination of both suffering and pleasure. To end pleasure is morally wrong, so by continuing the syllogism for pleasure rather than suffering, one would conclude that murder is both just and unjust, which is logically impossible. Therefore, it depends on whether or not the relief of pleasure was worth the relief of suffering. In most cases, it is not. "There is no such thing as an afterlife..." The case against an afterlife is a bold one, although it is backed by no evidence. There is no evidence against a supernatural soul living on beyond the death of the natural nervous system, and as an afterlife would generally be supernatural, we are unable to draw any definite conclusions. "In all cases, the individual benefits from this nirvana." Nirvana is the lack of pleasure and lack of suffering, although my opponent finally chooses this time to be the optimist. Now, consider this situation: you are told that you will enter a room and play a game in which you either receive pleasure or pain for one week, then step out and spend the rest of your life doing and thinking about absolutely nothing. However, you can step out of this room at any time. Will you end this one chance to actually experience something, or would you rather just go right on into nothing, and had you the ability to think, you'd regret not using your one chance in a better way? "Further, no objection can deny my syllogism." I had one objection, that the premise was incomplete in its assumption, therefore invalidating the entire syllogism. Now, allow me to introduce one more thing before I had over the debate to my opponent. B1. Murder Causes Suffering in Others [2] This suffering is also known as mourning. When somebody that you were close to dies, you feel pain and suffering, missing their presence. Therefore, in addition to the near-neutrality of the murder in question, there is also the additional suffering that it causes to others. C. Syllogism 1. To cause suffering is morally bad. (Inverse of AII, also note that my negation only applied to life, and not suffering caused by murder) 2. Murder almost always causes suffering. (NI) 3. Murder is almost always morally bad. (Substitution, lines 1 and 2) 4. Murder is almost never morally good. (Inverse of 4) 5. Something is just if and only if it is morally good. [3] 6. Murder is almost never just. (Substitution, lines 4 and 5) This syllogism is even more solid than my opponent's, as it does not have the flip-side of pleasure. The resolution is negated. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Numerous ailments such as certain types of cancer result in a slow, agonizing death. Doctors have enough knowledge and experience to know when a patient's days are numbered. What purpose would it serve to suffer endlessly until the body finally gives out? Imagine what it would be like to spend six months vomiting, coughing, enduring pain spasms, losing control of excretory functions, etc. Then you must consider the psychological suffering; i.e. the knowledge that a patient knows he's definitely going to die and the pain is only going to get worse. Wouldn't it be more humane to give the patient the option to say when he's had enough? SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT FACILITATE THE RIGHT TO DIE?

Euthanasia is a very intense topic, as one can imagine. Similar to abortion, questions of life and the worthiness of life exist, however, in this case, it is presumably voluntary (I will respond to this in a later round, as we see that in practice this is often not the case). The issue of euthanasia can be compared to the issue of racial equality when it comes to life. Pro-assisted suicide arguments generally rely upon the premise that some lives aren’t worth living. That if the pain is too severe, if the person feels worthless, or if the fix is too costly for a patient that death is a preferable option to life. In other words, certain lives aren't worth living. However, to argue that some lives are not worth living is in direct opposition to the laws which prohibit and struck down racial prejudice laws. The inviolability of human life is the principle which ‘equal and inalienable’ rights rests upon. It is the failure to understand the intrinsic value of life which leads to a person supporting pro-euthanasia arguments. To respond to this basic premise--of human life--proponents of assisted suicide often use the autonomy argument, but then comes the question: what should the physician do when the patient is incapable of making a decision. Generally, they say it is logical to defer the decision to family members and friends. But as we can see, this is in direct conflict with the autonomy principle which they base their original moral case upon. They are forced to contradict themselves! The simple fact is, if you support physician assisted suicide, you are forced to concede that lives have differing moral values, which is in direct opposition to the foundations of current legal institutions [1]. Doctors certainly agree with the position I am espousing. The Massachusetts Medical Society has voted to reaffirm its opposition to physician assisted suicide. Doctors argue that killing their patients is not their role as a healthcare provider. Deliberate destruction of human life is not acceptable according to their principles--and it should be for any decent human being. To clarify, I am not saying people for euthanasia are evil, I am saying that they need to reevaluate their position in order to support human dignity. Instead, the doctors assert that doctors’ goal should be to alleviate pain and instead make the final days much more pleasant rather than end the life altogether. Let me explain the position a bit more. A physician who helps a patient, even if it means speeding up the time before the patient dies, is not in a morally problematic situation. Death is a foreseeable likelihood but not intended. However if the purpose is to cause death, the doctor is in a precarious situation. The former doctor attempted to help the person--even if it accidentally led to a premature death (or, in many cases, a bearable life, or even recovery), however this doctor is one who chooses death over life. Adam Macleod, Associate Professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, argues “A person who purposely chooses to cause death, who makes death a reason for his actions, is not oriented toward the good. … By choosing life, one becomes a person oriented toward life. By choosing death, one becomes a person oriented toward death. ”[2] The World Medical Association also agrees with this testament, stating “The World Medical Association reaffirms its strong belief that euthanasia is in conflict with basic ethical principles of medical practice, and The World Medical Association strongly encourages all National Medical Associations and physicians to refrain from participating in euthanasia, even if national law allows it or decriminalizes it under certain conditions. ”[3] To conclude my basic point, the basic foundations of our society--the equality of human life--as well as principles which doctors abide by are in direct opposition to physician assisted suicide. To support assisted suicide is to favor death over life, and admit that under some conditions lives of people are worth less than others, which demonizes the weak patients who would ask for such a terrible thing. Euthanasia should remain prohibited and seen as a wrong in society. 1. . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... 2. . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... 3. . http://www.wma.net...

== 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...

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.

We should give terminally ill patients physiological care, not the option to kill themself: "A scientific study of people with terminal illness published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that fewer than one in four expressed a wish to die, and all of those who did had clinically diagnosable depression.... Effective psychotherapeutic treatment is possible with the terminally ill" [1] My opponent says there is no treatment available when drugs don't work, but pain can be managed, and in the worst case scenario a person can be frozen until a cure is found. Letting someone give up on hope is wrong, It is also wrong to put someone in a position where they have to help someone end their life. No-one can accurately say how long someone has to live, and whether a cure will be found in time. We should not give up on anybody or have a negative view of life. People who don't want someone to die who want to spend more time with someone are not selfish, they love that person, and love is not selfish. Women may say if you love/respect me you'll do this or that. But doing what they tell you to do i.e. "respecting their choice" would end a relationship with them, as respect is not shown by simply doing what someone wants you to. Telling a terminally ill person that you understand their pain and will let a doctor kill them is the same. You are not actually respecting their choice. Think about the message it would send to everyone else if it were legal to assist someone in killing them self, you'd be saying that a disabled person's life is less precious when in fact all life is equal and worth living. If assisted suicide is legal and considered okay, people are more likely to feel a burden to other people due to there being an option to end their life. People will have less respect for life especially disabled or older people, which leads to misery, which leads to a weakened immune system, which then leads to illness. So basically more people will be terminally ill if it is legal for someone to assist someone killing them self. If you want less people to suffer then assisting someone to kill them self should remain illegal. My opponent says 'They are no longer the person you once knew' which I think devalues terminally ill people. Everyone changes, no-one can be like before, pain is what makes us who we are, and is the reason we can be loved. A natural death is therefore something that no-one should fear. sources: [1] http://www.nrlc.org...

Thanks for waiting :DDepression My opponent’s claim is they will take medicines then choose euthanasia. Though as stated virtually all euthanasia patients are depressed, and once they are healed they choose life. Meaning unless we mandate depression testing before they choose suicide, the problem would never be fixed as doctors rarely point out that they are depressed. And these mandates are contradictory to your arguments, as it would increase the amount of time doctors are with the patients. And, much of the time, it would be a violation of rights to enter their realm. So, really, this solution won’t work. And, anyway, many of these medications are ineffective meaning we think they are rational when they still are not, making your solution more frivolous [1]. Lives My opponent has claimed that there is 100 million signed up to be a donor. However many of them don’t pass the necessary tests so the actual donor count, based on that source, is 14,000 [2]. And, anyway, I have already showed these donors would eventually die so there would still be a continual chain of donors, and, therefore, having no effect on the amount of donors. Furthermore, I showed even if you agree with my opponents (they die faster meaning more donors) you would only add 80 to the stockpile. And many of them would not pass the tests. In reality, euthanasia would save no lives and have a net negative. And my opponent in his 100 million statistics also misses the point. Many of them choose later not to be a donor, and using living and dead so we get the 14,000 number. SO basically the 6,000 numbers is a better estimate. And that 100,000,000 counts people since the technology existed. Cost His argument is a play on emotions. A fallacy. I showed 300 people would have no overall effect, and this is a fact, and my opponent never refuted it. He merely states we are in bad economic times. Though this does not refute anything. It merely concedes no effect, meaning there is no cost benefit demonstrated by my opponent. Merely play on emotions. PainAgain, this point is weak as all diseases can be treated leaving minimal or non-existent pain. As the NRLC notes, “Proponents of euthanasia argue that "mercy-killing" is necessary because patients, particularly those with terminal illness, experience uncontrollable pain. They argue that the only way to alleviate the pain is to eliminate the patient. But is there a better way? … The better response to patients in pain is not to kill them, but to make sure that the medicine and technology currently available to control pain is used more widely and completely. According to a 1992 manual produced by the Washing ton Medical Association, Pain Management and Care of the Terminal Patient, "adequate interventions exist to control pain in 90 to 99% of patients."[3]Meaning his point on pain is, again, a play on emotions. There is no such thing as “mercy” killing, and this point is a moot. The quote above was previously given, I think, and I did indeed show there is no pain to control and, therefore, the point does not work in my opponents favor. And yes, many Americans get cancer. The point? See the quote above. This doesn’t work in your favor. A “right”My opponent in summary only says this: it’s a personal choice. This is not enough to prove it is a right as I have shown a right to life exists. Basically its like this:1. A right to life exists (my opponent agrees)2. No legal document shows a right to death exists (my opponent dropped this)3. Euthanasia does not fulfill any right to life and violates the right to life The second part of my argument is:1. Most people on euthanasia are depressed (agreed upon)2. If you are depressed, legally, you cannot be given anything except depression treatment “Those seeking suicide would be legally entitled to be left alone [if they where depressed]”[4] 3. There is no right to euthanasia, they should be left alone This mean arguing it’s a choice is irrelevant unless he shows this choice is a right, not a mere privilege or choice. My opponent then talks about religions, though this has nothing to do with rights. Many religions support murder, though murder isn’t a right. This argument is irrelevant. Conclusions Basically we get PROs appeal to emotions, and misrepresenting his own evidence [2]. And many mere assertions that do nothing to prove or disprove anything in the debate. When you get right down to it, PRO has failed to refute any of my arguments or prove his one point (rights). A CON vote would be logical. [1] http://www.overcomingbias.com... [2] http://www.organdonor.gov... [3] http://www.nrlc.org... [4] http://www.nrlc.org...

Thank you Mikel for your rebuttal. I looked at your main points very closely and I'll will refute those points using the sources I have found and by doing so, I will try to highlight the all the problems with your argument for assisted suicide and show viewers that your argument doesn't have the moral, psychological, or scientific standing compared to my argument against assisted suicide. I will also defend myself, my sources, and my credibility in this debate and hopefully refute your rebuttal and thus leading the viewers of this debate to side against the proposition. Let me start. First pro point: This will not give Doctors the right to kill people. It gives the person a choice to end their suffering. As I have shown in my argument, with the stories I have shared in this debate. Doctors are usually not given the right to allow assisted of a terminal Ill patient, but it can be in the state's government to right to allow the assisted suicide if such an euthanasia law is put in placed. Also, as It said with my source from nrlc.org, more then 93-94% of the people that are terminal Ill are not in the mental mind to decide to take there life away. So if the person has the right to choice to end their suffering they are doing it in a bad frame of mind and if the pain was reduced and the patient was in sound mind then you can ask them whether or not to die. My source from nrlc.org also said that when pain is reduced then the patient would choice not to commit assisted suicide but to die naturally. Second pro point: Suicide is already not illegal That is true. That is because it is impossible to convict someone to a crime when the person that commits the crime is already died. This is not related at all to the topic at hand and is really not needed to be highlighted apon. Third pro point: This is an act of kindness or moral act So with that logic that means it is morally right to allow the state to allow someone that is suffering from a terminal illness rather then keeping them alive, reducing their pain and allowing them to die naturally like the majority of he population around the world do everyday. This point is not based around logic but is more of a vision of a reality that soft and flowery. Everything that can be considered living suffers. Animals suffer, planet suffer and even the small skin cell suffers and that leads to the living substance to naturally death. As this point seems to put it, we should allow to people to die unnaturally to avoid the thing that connects humans to humans and living substance to living substance that perfectcally naturally, pain and suffering. Fourth and finally point from pro: Everyone persons body is their own, and the right of life is their choice It is true that that everyone humans body is their own, I can not disagree with that. But with with my source from nrlc.org, it shows that most terminal Ill patients suffer from a mental disorder and depression caused by the illness and are not in the right mind state understand the choice at hand or taking their own life away. Studies from my source in nrlc.org also highlight that that if the right methods and techniques where used, the patient would rather choice dying naturally then dying from assisted suicide. I also highlight the stories of Wagner, Cheney, and Stroup and highlight how the state of Oregon tried to push Wanger and Stroup to allow themselves to be assisted suicide rather then give them treatment they needed and how the state ether than using the advise from trained doctors pushed Cheney to death when if she was treated for depression she would have choice to die naturally. Now I shall defend myself and my views Quotes from pro: "In cons opening points he uses three stories to illustrate how assisted suicide could be taken advantage of" Assisted suicide was taken advantage. Read my statements about what happened in Oregon and see that it was taken advantage of and that it wasn't just a theory but real life telling of how and why assisted suicide was taken advantage of. Pro missed the point that the stories I used was to highlight what happens when euthanasia law whether regulated or not can be used by the state as a way of backing out of health care payments. Put this forward a clear as possible and yet the pro still does not see the harm these laws have done and what these laws may do if passed in poorer or more populated states. Quote from pro: "Con was making this point to show that "most people" who commit suicide are undergoing depression. Where as this will not fall under the guide lines of how this law will be passed it is irrelevant" Why is the mental state of the patient irrelevant to this debate. Only a small number (6-7%) of terminal ill patients have the mental power to decide on whether or not to allow themselves to be assisted suicide and hidi png out which takes time and money that could be used on reducing the pain allowing a less painfully and more naturally path to death. Quote from pro: "(Con) ignores the fact that it is there wish not to suffer because of the vast amounts of pain they are in." As I said before, as humans we all suffer. Yes terminal Ill patients suffer a lot of pain and I also hate to see people suffer but it is not something you can avoid or should avoid. Suffering is a naturally thing and all humans feel and not just according to me but to trained medical professtionals like Dr. Kubler-Ross understand that suffering and feeling depressed about it is part of dealing with death. We can reduce the suffering of the terminal Ill patient to allow themselves to die naturally. I end here but telling the viewers to lot over all the results and to see who follower the guidelines of the debate better and to see which one of used more sounded logic and better sources. Mikel, thank you for allowing me to think long and hard about this topic, it is an important topic and I thank you for bringing it up. Now viewers, I hope that you read all the arguments and rebuttals and pick the side you think should win. Do not feel pressured, but follow with your brain and fell with your heart. Thank you!

Consensual euthanasia isn't the taking of the life, the patient chooses to give their life and asks for help fulfilling their request. The life isn't taken, it is given. It is the taking of life that makes murder immoral, just like it is the taking of property that makes theft immoral, and it is the taking of someone's body that makes rape immoral; what is immoral is the forcibly taking, the violating of another person's body or property, the lack of consent is what makes it wrong. I'm only arguing for consensual euthanasia, no person but the patient should decide whether it happens to them and no one but the people that are assisting should force them to assist; it must be a free choice of both the patient and any doctors or anyone else involved. Although the life ends it is not taken; it is the taking of life not the ending of life that is immoral. The prohibition of euthanasia is actually a forcible violation of liberty and is immoral. It is a restriction of freedom, it removes a choice. It is the State telling a person and that they aren't allowed to make a decision regarding their own body and life. Banning euthanasia implies that a person doesn't own themselves and are instead owned by society or the state; it is a violation of liberty, choice, body, and life. Not only is euthanasia not morally wrong, prohibiting it is wrong. Euthanasia can prevent suffering. A person may decide that a condition will create too much pain or negatively impact some other part of their life too much for their life to be worth living anymore. By having an option of euthanasia they may choose to prevent that last part of their life. Their life as a whole could be better off even if it is ended early. Instead of the end of their life being horrible and degrading the overall quality of their whole life euthanasia can give a person a way to avoid the suffering at the end and preserve the quality of their life until the end. Prohibiting euthanasia is dooming some people to horrible suffering that they wish to avoid. No one should decide that someone else's life is worth living, but nor should anyone force someone to keep living; consensual euthanasia isn't deciding for someone else or forcing them to do anything, it is just an option that they may freely choose if they determine it to be their best choice. There are additional negative outcomes that can arise when people choose euthanasia in violation of a prohibition. I'm not arguing that it ought to be legal because people will do it anyway, I'm arguing that an additional reason why it should be legal is that when people do it illegally there are more negative things that come from it than if it were done legally; this is a similar to the argument that women would suffer additional risks of injury and infection from an illegal abortion than a legal abortion. One negative that accompanies only illegal instances of euthanasia is the quality of the death, since it would be a black market operation there wouldn't be the same medical standards to ensure the most painless death. Doctors that have worked hard for their licences wouldn't be likely to risk their livelihoods by performing an illegal procedure so people may choose to instead end their own life themselves or seek out a criminal to help them. If a family member chose to help and felt guilty afterwards they might not get counseling to help because they'd be afraid of persecution or negative stigma. This is similar to an argument to legalize drugs and if I was debating that I'd use the same sort of argument. I want to respect your conclusion as your summary and your last word in support of you case, however since you asked a couple direct questions of me in your conclusion (about how a person gets their value and if society can discard them if they are not valuable) I will just very briefly answer them. A person's worth is determined by how that person and other people value them. We should not get rid of them if society deems them no longer valuable, a person owns themselves and euthanasia should be their own choice. A person's value is determined by society and themselves, but a person's choice is only their own. Thank you for this debate. It was a pleasure to debate you and although I didn't change my mind of the subject, I have acquired a greater understanding of and appreciation for your side.


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

Euthanasia should not be made legal. Contrary to popular belief, it's not for us to decide when life ends; that decision is in the hands of a higher power. Euthanasia doesn't provide a cure for today's incurable diseases, such as cancer in the elderly. Instead, it should allow them to experience the fullness of life until their natural end.

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 being pro will argue for this. Let us define this (1)Assisted suicide is "Suicide accomplished with the aid of another person, especially a physician." Round 1: is accepting the debate. Round 2: Build your case. No rebuttals Round 3: Confrontation, No new points shall be made. Offer rebuttals to your opponents case while establishing a closing statement. Any new points made other than ones that reestablish a previous point will result in loss of conduct points

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.

My opponent has gone down the route of pointing out the fallacies I have apparently committed. Therefore, the majority of this round will be for me to explain why my arguments are not guilty of being fallacious. The first accusation is that my argument relating to terminal illness uses a false equivalence fallacy. However, that would only be the case if I actually asserted that normal life is equivalent to terminal-illness life in all respects, which is obviously guilty of the false equivalence fallacy. Instead, I asserted that normal life is equivalent to terminal-illness life in ONE respect, namely the fact that both are terminal. I do not extrapolate this premise to assert their equivalence. To put it simply, this is what I did: My opponent used the logic that; 'the fact that we're going to die at the end of a terminal illness makes it inconsequential that we die prematurely'. However, the characteristic of terminal illness that she uses to justify this assertion is the fact that it is terminal. Therefore we can simplify the logic to: 'the fact that we're going to die at the end of X period of time makes it inconsequential that we die in the midst of X period of time'. Yet this logic has absurd consequences, namely that it would mean that it is inconsequential to kill someone in the midst of their lifespan. This is because all life is terminal, why should the fact that one is ill make it any less inconsequential to kill them prematurely? Moving on, Pro claims that some patients may be too ill to have a worthwhile life in their final days. This may be true, but I should imagine that if they are so ill that they cannot have worthwhile life then they are only alive because of life support machines. Removing life support machines is not euthanasia because it is not killing by means of either direct chemical injection or removal of ordinary nutrients (i.e food and water). Removing life support is letting nature take it's course, as opposed to euthanasia which is direct preternatural killing. My opponent goes on to restate her argument about giving patients a sense of control. However, this is not a substantial reason why we should legalise euthanasia. We could legalise loads of things that give people control, it is non sequitor to actually justify doing so. The next accusation is that my argument about mental instability commits the inductive fallacy. Supposedly, I do this by moving from 'many terminally ill patients are mentally unstable' to 'euthanasia should be denied to all terminally ill patients.' This would be fallacious if I did not support this logical jump. I will support it now. The fact is that mental illness is frequently underdiagnosed in terminally ill patients (1). So if we implemented regulation that decreed that terminally ill patients who are also mentally ill cannot have euthanasia, we would not prevent ALL mentally ill people from requesting euthanasia (because we would only be counting the diagnosed mentally-ill patients). The only way to prevent all mentally ill people from seeking euthanasia is, therefore, to prevent everyone from requesting euthanasia. My opponent responds to my argument about development of pain relief by simply stating that 'it should still be [the patient's] individual choice'. However, she does not justify why it is necessary to allow an unnecessary choice. Finally, Pro maintains that the problem of depression can be solved by treatment. However, as I have said above, these mental conditions are underdiagnosed. Consequently, only those diagnosed with depression can be treated for it and therefore, as not all who have depression are diagnosed, not all euthanasia-candidates would be adequately treated to be able to make a sound decision. Furthermore, treating mental illnesses is a very inexact science - it is idealistic to expect doctors to administer a cure and then be certain that it has worked. The next accusation my arguments face is that of committing the slippery-slope fallacy. The slippery slope in question being from legalisation of euthanasia to the normality of euthanasia. My opponent insists that 'There is no proof that [my] argument would in fact occur.' On the contrary, there IS evidence from the Netherlands (a country where euthanasia is legal) that euthanasia is becoming normalised and increasingly accepted. The amount of deaths from euthanasia in the Netherlands is increasing exponentially (2)(3), yet there is no significant change in the rate of diagnosis of terminal illness. Therefore the only possible explanation for this increase is the increasingly-accepted nature of euthanasia. This is evidence that euthanasia will, if legalised, become the default way to die. This ties into my next argument about medical research. My opponent insists that there will still be some who do not request euthanasia on ideological grounds, and these can be used for research. However, the evidence from the Netherlands indicates that this number will be ever-diminishing, which is bad news for medical research because for proper methodological practice, large sample sizes are required. With legal euthanasia, these samples could not be found. Pro goes on to raise the possibility of research done post-mortem. Whilst this is possible, it is far more effective to observe the progress of a disease as it kills someone (morbid, I know). Post-mortems can only do so much. The final accusation of my arguments is that my argument regarding elderly patients commits the fallacious argument from silence. Pro highlights that I do not provide evidence that most terminally-ill patients are elderly. Yet the reason I did not deign to provide evidence was because it is fairly evident that most terminally-ill patients are elderly. But for the purposes of the debate, and to rebut the accusation, I will provide evidence. In 2012, 83.4% of hospice patients were over 65 (4). As a hospice is an institution designed to care for the terminally ill, it is therefore logical to conclude that the majority of terminally-ill patients are over 65 (elderly). Whilst it is true that there are a few terminally ill patients who are not elderly, the fact that the majority ARE elderly entails that we ought to consider how euthanasia legislation would affect them. I have argued soundly that it will negatively affect them, so it follows that we ought to prevent euthanasia becoming legal. Finally, my opponent voices a new argument, that of whether or not euthanasia is 'unnatural'. Yet this argument does not harm my position because removal of life-support is not euthanasia; it is the patient declining to receive medical treatment. We already have a right to refuse treatment in the UK(5), yet euthanasia is not legal in the UK (6). This entails that they are not the same thing. To summarise, one can support the right to refuse treatment but still be against euthanasia. I thank my opponent for a very interesting debate, I have learnt a lot and I'm sure she has too :) (1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (2) http://tinyurl.com... (3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... (4) http://www.nhpco.org... (page 6) (5) http://www.nhs.uk...; (6) http://www.nhs.uk...

My opponent's argument appears to be centered around one main point: the role of doctors. To prove that his arguments are flawed, I will be using a three-pronged approach: 1. Physicians do not always "bring about the patient's end", as my opponent claims. A device currently on display at the British Museum, the Deliverance Machine, ensured that it would be the patient bringing about their own death - a physician would not even have to be involved. 2. Doctors would not be obliged to administer euthanasia, just as they are not required to perform operations such as neonatal circumcision now. 3. Terminally ill patients are not always able to bring about their own death. For this third point, I will be citing the example of Christian Rossiter, a man from Australia who won the "right to die" in 2009. Before I refute the major flaws in my opponent's case, I would like to address the results of the Gallup poll that my opponent disputed. My opponent wonders why I refer to those against voluntary euthanasia as a vocal minority. In 2002, a Gallup poll returned results of 72% in favour of voluntary euthanasia, and in a second poll, only 31% said they would oppose voluntary euthanasia in all circumstances, even when a terminally ill patient is experiencing intolerable suffering. From these two polls, it can be assumed that a vast majority of Americans consider voluntary euthanasia acceptable, even if only for some (with an exclusion of say, people suffering from depression). Back to the issue! The first point I would like to address is the statement made by my opponent that "in order for euthanasia to take place, two parties must be present[,] one being the patient and one being a physician". However, this is not true. From 1995 to 1997, a device called the Deliverance Machine was used by several patients to end their own lives. The device asked the patients three questions, all variations on "do you understand that if you press the 'yes' button, you will die? ". The device allowed a patient to die with no involvement from a physician. [1] A similar device involving inhaled gases was invented by founder of Exit International, Dr Philip Nitschke, was invented in 2008. The invention of these devices mean that although a doctor would be involved in giving a device to the patient for use, they would not ultimately be the ones administering a lethal injection. A second point that my opponent makes is that doctors would legally be required to assist in the patient's suicide, and that this would be an infringement of their rights. This is not so. In some areas, parents may be hard-pressed to find a physician willing to perform a circumcision on their infant child. Doctors are not 'legally required' to perform circumcisions, as it may be against their beliefs to do so. This would also be the situation if euthanasia were to be legalized in the United States. If it is against their beliefs to bring about the death of a patient, they would not be required to do so. This way, it will be possible to keep both patients and doctors happy. Patients will be able to undergo voluntary euthanasia, and doctors would not be legally required to do so - just like circumcisions. A third point of my opponent's that I would like to address is the belief that terminally ill patients are free to end their own lives if they wish to do so, without the assistance of others. However, this is simply not true for some. To support this point, I would like to use the case of Christian Rossiter, a quadraplegic from Australia, as an example. In 2009, Rossiter won a ruling from his state's Supreme Court allowing him to die, and absolving his carers from any criminal offence for allowing his death. Rossiter was experiencing intolerable suffering. According to him, "I am a prisoner in my own body. I can't move. I can't even wipe the tears from my eyes" [2]. As Rossiter was a quadraplegic, he was not able to commit suicide by "hanging [or] slashing. .. the wrists" as my opponent claims. Although Rossiter was given the right to refuse food and medical treatment, euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke claims that euthanasia is more humane than starving to death, as obviously, starving is a very painful process. Euthanasia, however, is a quick and simple process. Finally, my opponent claims that I think euthanasia is a medical treatment. As medical treatment has the aim of 'fixing' a health problem, euthanasia cannot be a medical treatment, as it does not bring about the removal of a cancer from the body, for example. Euthanasia is a means to escape the effects of the medical problem, yes, but it does not ultimately heal it. To begin Round 2 of this debate, I would like to remind readers of the three reasons I have discussed that render my opponent's points moot. Firstly, a physician does not have to be present during the death itself. Devices such as the Deliverance Machine allow a patient to initiate the euthanizing process themselves. Secondly, doctors would not be required to agree to euthanizing a patient, just as they are not required to perform circumcisions. Finally, do not forget the unfortunate case of Christian Rossiter from Australia. Although anti-euthanasia advocates such as my opponent may claim that people are free to commit suicide if they wish, some are not able to, and to put themselves out of suffering, request that they are euthanized for their own benefit. Sources [1] . http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk... [2] . http://www.abc.net.au... [3] . http://www.abc.net.au...

We should give terminally ill patients physiological care, not the option to kill themself: "A scientific study of people with terminal illness published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that fewer than one in four expressed a wish to die, and all of those who did had clinically diagnosable depression.... Effective psychotherapeutic treatment is possible with the terminally ill" [1] My opponent says there is no treatment available when drugs don't work, but pain can be managed, and in the worst case scenario a person can be frozen until a cure is found. Letting someone give up on hope is wrong, It is also wrong to put someone in a position where they have to help someone end their life. No-one can accurately say how long someone has to live, and whether a cure will be found in time. We should not give up on anybody or have a negative view of life. People who don't want someone to die who want to spend more time with someone are not selfish, they love that person, and love is not selfish. Women may say if you love/respect me you'll do this or that. But doing what they tell you to do i.e. "respecting their choice" would end a relationship with them, as respect is not shown by simply doing what someone wants you to. Telling a terminally ill person that you understand their pain and will let a doctor kill them is the same. You are not actually respecting their choice. Think about the message it would send to everyone else if it were legal to assist someone in killing them self, you'd be saying that a disabled person's life is less precious when in fact all life is equal and worth living. If assisted suicide is legal and considered okay, people are more likely to feel a burden to other people due to there being an option to end their life. People will have less respect for life especially disabled or older people, which leads to misery, which leads to a weakened immune system, which then leads to illness. So basically more people will be terminally ill if it is legal for someone to assist someone killing them self. If you want less people to suffer then assisting someone to kill them self should remain illegal. My opponent says 'They are no longer the person you once knew' which I think devalues terminally ill people. Everyone changes, no-one can be like before, pain is what makes us who we are, and is the reason we can be loved. A natural death is therefore something that no-one should fear. sources: [1] http://www.nrlc.org...

They should have the right to choose if they are dying of an incurable disease regardless if there is a chance they are going to die in 6 months. Why is it a different thing to comprehend just because we change it to I child. If that child is in pain suffering every day, and says mommy I don't want it to hurt anymore, why is it not a merciful and loving act, or later you mention teenage girls, someone that age with more comprehension, why can't they choose for themselves, obviously after discussion which there would be in any hypothetical we discuss. As for your other point, joking as it may have been no sane person is going to kill their daughter, and no one is forcing the person to die, you seem to think that if the child says no they still can kill it? It's a scenario that would be discussed with that ill party. . "Physicians in Oregon who received requests for aid in dying from 143 patients after enactment of the Death with Dignity Act reported that 20% were depressed"a proportion comparable to what we found in this study. None of the depressed patients on whom they submitted information received a prescription for a lethal drug.34 Studies of healthcare providers, including hospice professionals, and family members in Oregon indicate that they believe that depression was rarely a factor influencing requests for a physician"s aid in dying." According to two other studies it's in the 20% range, rarely depression is a factor in asking for assistance, and none who were suffering from depression received that assistance. Suicide being illegal doesn't stop someone, they'll be dead after, if they stop themselves it's not because it's illegal and if they are motivated and get turned down for assistance, they will do it themselves. So not only are there measures preventing someone who is depressed from killing themselves in this way, but let's say there were not and someone did slip through those measures,why is that so terrible, medication will take weeks for their depression, therapy could take months or years. At the end of the day you have 6 months to work with, choosing this would still save them that painful death and choose something peaceful. Hospice can be so cheap for a very simple reason, the care is similarly cheap. Patient's in hospice have a 6 month prognosis, and also are not allowed to seek curative care. With everything but pain medication being cut and very basic care, on top of being government funded is why it can be so cheap. Its a place you go to die, some people might not want a slow 6 month ride to death and should have the right to choose otherwise if they;re going to die so soon anyway.

Numerous ailments such as certain types of cancer result in a slow, agonizing death. Doctors have enough knowledge and experience to know when a patient's days are numbered. What purpose would it serve to suffer endlessly until the body finally gives out? Imagine what it would be like to spend six months vomiting, coughing, enduring pain spasms, losing control of excretory functions, etc. Then you must consider the psychological suffering; i.e. the knowledge that a patient knows he's definitely going to die and the pain is only going to get worse. Wouldn't it be more humane to give the patient the option to say when he's had enough? SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT FACILITATE THE RIGHT TO DIE?

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

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