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

Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide should be made legal. My adversary did not present an argument in the second round, so I will provide a statistic for my final round and then summarize all my arguments, elaborating on them. My opponent stated that there should be no justification for legalizing any form of suicide, to which I responded that if someone wishes to end their life, they will find a way, so why not legalize euthanasia, which is painless? I want to mention that euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands. In 1991, they conducted a study, and in 86% of cases where euthanasia was administered, the person's life was shortened by a maximum of a week. These 86% were in unbearable agony and desired to end their suffering immediately. Regardless of the circumstances, these individuals would have died within a week, so why not end their pain promptly if possible? Now, I will summarize all my arguments and categorize the benefits of legalizing euthanasia into two groups: the advantages for the person who wishes to leave this world, and the advantages for the dependents and society. The benefits for those who want to leave this world include a more painless death than otherwise. No one wants to endure a painful death, so why allow many people to suffer through an excruciating one? Moreover, I believe it is every person's right to make their own choices, so why not let them decide for themselves? -Don't misunderstand me; I am not advocating for everyone to receive euthanasia! In my opinion, someone with an incurable disease should certainly be able to receive euthanasia to avoid a painful death. The benefits for the dependents and society include fewer suicides when euthanasia is legalized. No dependent wants to discover their loved one dead in their home, so legalizing euthanasia would spare them this traumatic experience. Furthermore, some individuals who want to commit suicide may intentionally cause car accidents, which can harm other drivers. This is unacceptable, and no one should die at the expense of others. Additionally, legalizing euthanasia could have economic benefits, as the society would save money by not having to respond to car accidents and clean up the aftermath. The crashes can also cause traffic jams. I hope that euthanasia becomes legal so that fewer people commit suicide and more can depart this world peacefully and painlessly.

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.

Euthanasia devalues human life Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death There is a "slippery slope" effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only the terminally ill and later laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily.

You make a spirited defence of euthanasia, very much based around the premise that people have a right to end their life and that their decision is final. However, people can only make rational decisions when in a completely sane state of mind. In cases of depression, one is not sane and so cannot make rational decisions. Consequently, as people seeking euthanasia have depression (in the vast majority of cases) their decision is not rational. We should not allow people to make irrational decisions if doing so would seriously harm them, as euthanasia essentially is insofar as it kills. My second point is that it is all well and good to listen to the patient and the patient alone, but the elderly and disabled can be very susceptible to persuasion from friends, family or the media. If euthanasia was legalised it is naive to presume that people will decide to die purely based on their own intuitions, in the Netherlands, the amount of people choosing euthanasia per year has doubled in 10 years (1) yet the amount of people with terminal illnesses has not significantly increased. This would heavily suggest that people are being encouraged, either by observing an increasing trend or feeling obliged to conform to social norms, to be euthanised. If euthanasia is only the patient's choice then there would not be a significant rise. Ultimately, a euthanasia law based on the total autonomy of the individual is impractical and Utopian because it ignores the fact that the large majority of people are readily influenced by other people, especially family and friends who may have ulterior motives. On a side point, how can a doctor tell if the patient wants to die because of pain or if they want to die because they feel they have a duty to save their family money? The elderly have very little security as it is, legalising euthanasia could be construed as a hint that it is acceptable to have euthanasia and therefore some people will come to expect elderly people to seek euthanasia. This could easily lead to people wanting the elderly to die and thinking them selfish to continue consuming resources. Is this a society that values the elderly? "I agree that depression and disparity are horrible. How is relieving oneself of that depression and disparity horrible?" Because it is not needed. Depression is temporary and so by committing suicide these people are seeking a disproportionate solution for something that can be cured. Your argument that they can't regret suicide if they're dead is not valid though as it can be reduced to the absurd; using your logic I could let a lunatic jump off a cliff claiming 'I was right not to stop him, he wanted to jump off a cliff and it's not like they can regret his decision now he's dead'. However, this is contrary to what seems obviously the right thing to do. We should stop a non-sane (I don't think it's entirely apt to call them insane) person making a decision that seriously harms them because we would not take their desire seriously; they are not in the right state of mind to make sensible decisions. "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" Just because they are given time to consider, as well as the facts, does not mean that they can process it to make a rational decision. You cannot give a lunatic a book on science and expect them to then make rational scientific judgements. Also, if euthanasia is 'highly recommended' then how does that not influence a patient? If someone is undecided as to whether to seek euthanasia, someone highly recommending it could easily persuade them to do so. We stray into metaphysics here, but I think it is worth noting that we cannot be sure that death is an experience of nothing. I'm not going to postulate different afterlives here but I'm just highlighting the assumption you make. ""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)." For the record, I do not agree with abortion. However, if we can envisage a good outcome for someone who does not have the mental capacity to realise it, we should guide them towards that outcome. If I were suffering under a mental illness then I would want people to stop me from making decisions I have not rationally made. "The doctors are not the ones granting life and death. The patient makes the decision to die or not." Well, in the Netherlands the law states that the doctor has to approve the euthanasia request, so they still have the role of granting the request. (2) (1)http://www.telegraph.co.uk... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you Con for building your case. I will now summarize cons main points that he presented and offer rebuttals for each. (1) The state of Oregon along with other states has or may use doctors and physicians as a tool to end a patients life so that they will not have to pay for medication. He believes they will do this by taking advantage of their mental state. Direct quote by con"To me, these stories tell me that the State of Oregon was using something that advocates say will help people die peacefully to really using it so they could not pay for their medicine all three of these cancer patients want"(2) People who want to commit suicide most of the time are suffering from a mental disorder(3) Morality. He believe it is immoral to take a persons life. Direct quote from Con"Personally I think if someone wants to die whether healthy or ill, there is a bigger issue or issues underneath the surface of the plea for death, so instead of allowing that person life we just kill them off instead of helping them through the issues they have"(1)In cons opening points he uses three stories to illustrate how assisted suicide could be taken advantage of. He states that people with cancer and other types of terminal illness are undergoing depression from which they can be treated, and he wishes that they are treated for depression so that they would not wish to die. I will not argue the fact that most people suffering from types of terminal illness are undergoing depression. In fact I will say that there is a high probability they are which Con demonstrated within his sources. Con however completely missed the main issue behind assisted suicide. That is the reason why they are depressed. People suffering from terminal illness are often undergoing intense of amounts of pain. As he pointed out with cancer. You can have cancer of the lungs, breasts, or in most parts of your party. There is heart disease and other types of illnesses that lead to deterioration of the body. It is very easy to see why these people are depressed, and that is because of the amount of pain they are in. While Con is correct when he says they can be treated for depression, they can not be treated for some of the illnesses that plague them. That is why most of them are suffering from "Terminal Illness". Terminal illness is defined as "A medical term popularized in the 20th century to describe an active and malignant disease that cannot be cured". Most of these people have disease that are incurable and are forced to suffer through the pain. Some people can be in such intense pain that they pass out, especially with bone deterioration or cancer of the lungs in their final days. When they are in that type of suffering it is a completely viable option to give them the choice to end their suffering. He then states that doctors can be controlled in order to murder people so they will not have to pay for medical costs. This could possibly happen, but will not happen with controlled regulation. In fact it will decrease it from happening. As con stated there have already been cases in which this occurred. From the intense overview this will receive when it is regulated, it will be almost impossible to commit this. If a doctor even tried to do this and was caught, he would be tried for premeditated murder. At that point he will risk life in prison, death, revocation of his license, and a stain on his character as a person. Just out of the sheer consequences that come from this, a deterrent is already in place without regulations. Regulations will just help build the deterrent even more. (2)The context in which con is making this point is irrelevant to the debate but I will combat it anyway. As I have already tackled previously patients who are suffering from terminal illness are in that state because of pain and other reasons. 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. It is directly relevant to people who are in trauma or are suffering from severe illness. Where as it may extend to more people in a later date. As i have also stated, suicide itself is not a criminal act. So to bring up the point that most people who are not ill and that still see fit to commit suicide are depressed, is irrelevant to this topic. (3)Con questions the morality behind this. Seeing as how this is completely subjective I will argue as so. Con thinks that extended someone the curiosity of living longer is the moral act. He ignores the fact that it is there wish not to suffer because of the vast amounts of pain they are in. Where as morality is dependent upon different a persons viewpoint, I propose that it should be that person right, or the family right to say whether or not it is a moral act to end their suffering.In closing I have previously shown in my R2 argument and continued to show throughout this rounds argument why assisted suicide should be legalized. Suicide is already permitted and not considered a crime, so law is not being broken. It should also be a persons or their families right to determine if it is moral to end their suffering. I have also shown how this is already happening with the option of pulling the plug in some cases. Where as this is a passive cases of assisted suicide and they are not actually ending the persons life, it is still with the intention of kill them to help them ease their pain. The most important point is that everyone should have their right to their own body and be able to choose death or life. If they do not wish to be in pain, we have no right to put them through needless suffering if they so desire. I believe and have shown why this is moral, and helping ease a persons suffering. This is already starting to be pushed and is already in legal in some states, I ask that you take the steps to make it happen in the rest. Thank youhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...http://www.usccb.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!

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...

California is looking to legalize physician assisted suicide ,with a bill much resembling Oregon"s own. Introduced by senators Wolk and Monning January,20,2015,They call it the End of Life Act Option. Section 443 states "This bill would enact the End of Life Act Option authorizing and adult who meets certain qualifications, and who has been determined by his or her attending physician to be suffering from a terminal illness, as defined, to make a request for medication prescribed pursuant to these provisions for the purpose of ending his or her life."This bill is giving a individual of the age of 18 the option to commit suicide through a attending physician. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov... Its extremely hard for anyone to accept the loss of a loved one, whether they"re a child they raised or a sister they grew up with. Yet they call physician assisted suicide a "just, and dignified death."But as the battle of what"s right and what"s wrong continues, more citizens of the U.S would prefer having the ones they love for a few more days, a few more minutes, or even a few more seconds than losing them forever without a chance to even say goodbye.

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

Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Con and Pro makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Con makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, "No round as argeed upon. " If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling. Since Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicides are the same exact thing the terms and wording may be used interchangably throughout the debate Euthanasia- Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Physician Assisted Suicided- suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)


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

Assisted Suicide should be legalized in Virginia
I share the same objections to Physician-assisted suicide as I do with Euthanasia, they are immoral, subjective, there is no right to die, it leads to a slippery slope, it isn't truly voluntary, it goes against every major religion, and it degrades human life. Let's address my opponent's points.

1. "Patients will be able to die with dignity, free from pain and a possible long, suffering death." You mentioned Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. In Oregon, you qualify for PAS if "An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner" [1]. It makes no mention of pain. Further, "It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available." [2] Since pain can be controlled, it should not be used as a reason to end one's life.

2. "Physicians should assume their roles in relieving the sick from suffering." When people receive their medical degree, they have to take something called the Hippocratic Oath. In the Hippocratic Oath, it prohibits directly or indirectly killing human beings. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. [3] By violating this oath, how can we know the doctor is acting in the patient's interest? A physician's role is to kill illnesses, not kill patients.

3. "DWD is the humane thing to do." This is basically saying it is compassionate to kill them because they have no hope of recovery. "A century ago, high blood pressure, pneumonia, appendicitis, and diabetes likely meant death, often accompanied by excruciating pain. Women had shorter life expectancies than men since many died in childbirth. Antibiotics, immunizations, modern surgery, and many of today’s routine therapies or medications were

First off, it was utterly painful to read my opponent's arguments... No periods or capitalization.. It was like reading a huge run-on sentence. ---Now to my case:"The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause." (Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997) [1] Supreme Court rules that physician-assisted suicide is unconstitutional. "'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect" (Hippocratic Oath) [2] The Hippocratic Oath, the foundation of the art and science of medicine, states that physician-assisted suicide should not be practiced. A five-year-old boy in Great Britain, after a long battle, survived deadly strain of E. coli, even though a doctor had said two years ago that he would have died over night. [3] Miracles (or, to the less religious, improbable phenomena) happen. It is not right to deny patients of a slim chance of recovery or a doctor's error. A misdiagnosis could lead to the suicide of a savable person. Also, a premature decision to commit suicide denies a patient of precious time to spend with family and friends. ---[1] http://law2.umkc.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Thank you Con for building your case. I will now summarize cons main points that he presented and offer rebuttals for each. (1) The state of Oregon along with other states has or may use doctors and physicians as a tool to end a patients life so that they will not have to pay for medication. He believes they will do this by taking advantage of their mental state. Direct quote by con"To me, these stories tell me that the State of Oregon was using something that advocates say will help people die peacefully to really using it so they could not pay for their medicine all three of these cancer patients want"(2) People who want to commit suicide most of the time are suffering from a mental disorder(3) Morality. He believe it is immoral to take a persons life. Direct quote from Con"Personally I think if someone wants to die whether healthy or ill, there is a bigger issue or issues underneath the surface of the plea for death, so instead of allowing that person life we just kill them off instead of helping them through the issues they have"(1)In cons opening points he uses three stories to illustrate how assisted suicide could be taken advantage of. He states that people with cancer and other types of terminal illness are undergoing depression from which they can be treated, and he wishes that they are treated for depression so that they would not wish to die. I will not argue the fact that most people suffering from types of terminal illness are undergoing depression. In fact I will say that there is a high probability they are which Con demonstrated within his sources. Con however completely missed the main issue behind assisted suicide. That is the reason why they are depressed. People suffering from terminal illness are often undergoing intense of amounts of pain. As he pointed out with cancer. You can have cancer of the lungs, breasts, or in most parts of your party. There is heart disease and other types of illnesses that lead to deterioration of the body. It is very easy to see why these people are depressed, and that is because of the amount of pain they are in. While Con is correct when he says they can be treated for depression, they can not be treated for some of the illnesses that plague them. That is why most of them are suffering from "Terminal Illness". Terminal illness is defined as "A medical term popularized in the 20th century to describe an active and malignant disease that cannot be cured". Most of these people have disease that are incurable and are forced to suffer through the pain. Some people can be in such intense pain that they pass out, especially with bone deterioration or cancer of the lungs in their final days. When they are in that type of suffering it is a completely viable option to give them the choice to end their suffering. He then states that doctors can be controlled in order to murder people so they will not have to pay for medical costs. This could possibly happen, but will not happen with controlled regulation. In fact it will decrease it from happening. As con stated there have already been cases in which this occurred. From the intense overview this will receive when it is regulated, it will be almost impossible to commit this. If a doctor even tried to do this and was caught, he would be tried for premeditated murder. At that point he will risk life in prison, death, revocation of his license, and a stain on his character as a person. Just out of the sheer consequences that come from this, a deterrent is already in place without regulations. Regulations will just help build the deterrent even more. (2)The context in which con is making this point is irrelevant to the debate but I will combat it anyway. As I have already tackled previously patients who are suffering from terminal illness are in that state because of pain and other reasons. 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. It is directly relevant to people who are in trauma or are suffering from severe illness. Where as it may extend to more people in a later date. As i have also stated, suicide itself is not a criminal act. So to bring up the point that most people who are not ill and that still see fit to commit suicide are depressed, is irrelevant to this topic. (3)Con questions the morality behind this. Seeing as how this is completely subjective I will argue as so. Con thinks that extended someone the curiosity of living longer is the moral act. He ignores the fact that it is there wish not to suffer because of the vast amounts of pain they are in. Where as morality is dependent upon different a persons viewpoint, I propose that it should be that person right, or the family right to say whether or not it is a moral act to end their suffering.In closing I have previously shown in my R2 argument and continued to show throughout this rounds argument why assisted suicide should be legalized. Suicide is already permitted and not considered a crime, so law is not being broken. It should also be a persons or their families right to determine if it is moral to end their suffering. I have also shown how this is already happening with the option of pulling the plug in some cases. Where as this is a passive cases of assisted suicide and they are not actually ending the persons life, it is still with the intention of kill them to help them ease their pain. The most important point is that everyone should have their right to their own body and be able to choose death or life. If they do not wish to be in pain, we have no right to put them through needless suffering if they so desire. I believe and have shown why this is moral, and helping ease a persons suffering. This is already starting to be pushed and is already in legal in some states, I ask that you take the steps to make it happen in the rest. Thank youhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...http://www.usccb.org...

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Thank you :) Con. You are doing very well yourself. To counter my opponent"s case, I believe his arguments contains many fallacies that may render his argument as insufficient. Here is a list of the fallacies I will mention within my debate: Slippery-Slope- asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen (1). Inductive Fallacy- It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it (2). False equivalence- describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none (3). Argument from silence- where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence (4). -- In Con"s first refutation, he states: "My opponent attempts to refute my first argument by appealing to the fact that the patient will die anyway, irrespective of whether or not they ask for euthanasia. However, surely this logic can be applied to all human life? We will all die at some point, so surely our whole lives are terminal? The logic fails because the fact that we will die eventually does not render it inconsequential to end our lives prematurely. If this wasn't the case, then there would be no reason why we shouldn't commit suicide here and now." Through this statement, my opponent uses a false equivalence fallacy (3) because he attempts to state that an individual"s life (not affected by a terminal illness) is equivalent to a terminal patient"s life because everyone will die once they grow older. The use of this fallacy makes his argument insufficient because he is trying to point out a logical equivalence between the two when there is none. While I agree with my opponent on the fact that some terminally ill people can live out the last year or so of their life experiencing many new things before they pass, he assumes that this is the case for most patients. Some patients may be too ill to experience anything outside of their hospital room, which he fails to recognize. Also, he provides no explanation as to why my argument, that it will give patients a sense of control, is insufficient. A patient should have the right to die if they choose that option, instead of forcibly having their life dragged out through life support. -- Again, in my opponent"s next rebuttal, he states: "However the example of a few people is not sufficient to outweigh all the negatives that will result from legalising euthanasia." While I do agree that my example of Brittany Maynard can"t stand for every terminally ill patient, Con fails to realize that his evidence can"t stand for every terminal patient as well. In this part of his argument, he uses an inductive fallacy (2) because he claims that based on his light evidence that he has provided, most patients are mentally unstable. Therefore, due to his hasty conclusion, the option of euthanasia should not be available to any terminal patient. My opponent also goes on to talk about modern medicine improving all the time to help alleviate some pain. While this could help patients out greatly, it should still be their individual choice. Measures could be taken to make sure people know all of their options, are mentally stable, and have thought their decision out before choosing euthanasia. He stated that many terminal patients suffer from depression due to their illness, but depression can often be treated with medication and therapy to alleviate the psychological hindrance. If the depression is alleviated, than a sound judgment can be made by the patient themselves. -- In Con"s next argument, he continues to repeat himself on the fact that terminally ill patients cannot be trusted to make a decision like this. As I said in my rebuttal above, steps could potentially be taken to ensure a more stable judgment from the terminal patient. In response to his statement that my list saying that patients would decide based on their beliefs, Con states that this list is too "idealistic." I can see where he could have concluded that, but it is naive for him to assume that people will, because some other patients may choose euthanasia, end up choosing euthanasia because it is the "norm." For example, let"s take a look at Debate.org (and I am in no way saying that these are equivalent in any way, but this does help support the point that I will make). Every day, many people on this website debate their opinions on important controversial topics such as this one. How often do people budge from their own views on topics though? Am I budging on my opinion that euthanasia should be legalized? Are you? While some people may be influenced by the opinions of others around them, I believe that it is human nature to stick to your own beliefs. So in this case, why would it become the "norm" for people to choose euthanasia? If it were legalized, people who opposed euthanasia wouldn't"t just abandoned all of their previous beliefs, and their children would be raised in a household that opposes such an option. There is no proof that his argument would in fact occur. Through most of his arguments, he applies the slippery-slope fallacy (1). He assumes that if the choice to use euthanasia becomes available, than many severely negative outcomes will result. -- In response to Con"s argument that the use of euthanasia will severely handicap medical research for cures, I believe this is to concrete of a conclusion. I will reply simply with one main idea that ties into my argument from above. On the grounds that there will potentially be patients that oppose euthanasia as a treatment due to their beliefs, there will still be patients for researchers to observe different illnesses. Also, in regards to researching diseases to find cures, scientists can examine human cadavers that died from a terminal illness to research for a cure just as much as an alive person. Cures don"t have to come from observing a patient and how they progress through their disease, but they can come from examining the disease on a chemical/molecular level (which can be observed post-mortem). So observations could still be made post-mortem and through patients not wanting euthanasia. -- In my opponent"s last argument, he attempts to point out that I had not adequately responded to his point that you could employ regulations because I stated that "the option would most likely only be offered to terminally ill patients, not just average elderly people.' He, however, is the one that inadequately responds to my argument because he states that, "the fact remains that most terminally ill patients are actually elderly." He fails to hold a sound argument because with this, he exhibits the fallacy argument from silence (4). Con has no evidence that most terminally ill patients are in fact elderly, and he may be falsely assuming this because most elderly patients are in fact only reaching the end of their lifespan (dying due to old age). While terminally ill patients may very well be elderly in some cases, in others they may not be, making his argument insufficient. -- I would like to also point out another argument that I felt was important to bring forth. Some people that oppose euthanasia point out their belief that it is an unnatural way to die. I do not know if Con agrees with this notion, but I will go on to explain how this argument is insufficient. The reason this argument is often false is because, more often than not with terminal patients, their lives are dragged out in equally unnatural ways. A terminal patient that is hooked up to life support, for example, wouldn't survive naturally without the assistance of a machine. People shouldn't be deprived of the choice to be taken off these treatments that are essentially unnaturally dragging out their suffering because others don"t morally accept euthanasia as a proper choice to be allowed. -- (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

This is not about tony or any specific person. This about offering a process that should not be offered. If you use that argument then why should Tony die. Your overall argument has ignored every point i have made. I will not reintroduce any new arguments i will respond to what you said however. Again you have ignored my argument that these patients suffer from depression which can alter their decision. Which could mean maybe tony just needed a happier atmosphere. Killing him would affect his family. His friends and others. Last minutes should be cherished. Furthermore your argument is centered around the idea that ""If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period. " Not whether it is truly needed. Euthanasia should not be made legal due the key points that my opponent has not refuted.


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

Assisted Suicide should be legalized in Virginia

Today, I want to present an argument for Virginia to enact a Death with Dignity law, specifically advocating for physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia involves the act of ending someone's life to relieve extreme suffering, while physician-assisted suicide is when a physician provides a terminally ill, competent patient with a lethal medication dose at their request, allowing them to end their life. A documentary I watched, "How to Die in Oregon," shares the stories of several Oregonians with terminal illnesses, including Cody Curtis. Cody, a loving mother and wife, enjoyed hiking, cooking, gardening, and spending time with her family. At 52, she was diagnosed with bile duct cancer, leading to a liver operation removing 60% of her liver. A year later, the cancer returned, spreading to her liver, lungs, and lymph nodes. She faced unbearable pain and became weak, with her abdomen swollen from fluid buildup. Despite a drawer full of ineffective pain medication, she chose the Death with Dignity option. Cody was prescribed a lethal dose of Secanol, waiting for the right time, eventually using it after nearly a year, outliving her six-month prognosis. On December 7, 2009, Cody drank the Secanol mixture, peacefully dying within minutes, surrounded by loved ones. She had a happy, peaceful death instead of a prolonged, suffering one.

My three main reasons for supporting Death with Dignity in Virginia are: first, it allows patients to die with dignity, free from pain and a potentially long, suffering death. According to the Oregon DWDA 2013 report, nearly 98% of patients chose to die at home, on their terms. Second, physicians should relieve suffering when medical treatments fail. Dr. Quill, a palliative care specialist, says that while palliative care is effective, some patients still need last resort options due to severe suffering. Health care professionals should minimize indignities and promote dignity. Third, Death with Dignity is the humane choice. If we humanely end our pets' suffering, why not extend the same compassion to terminally ill humans? Dr. Singer believes it's unfair to let someone suffer in severe pain when nothing can alleviate it.

I propose Virginia adopt a Death with Dignity Act, with strict eligibility and safeguards. Eligible adults must have a terminal illness with under six months to live, evaluated by two physicians and a psychiatrist. Palliative care is the first

I would say no. While you do mention that there needs to be time for counesling we have to understand that sometimes that person isn't capable/refuses to be rehabilited. While I do agree in some cases of euthanasia your argument isn't about it being used in some cases. Your saying it should be available for EVERYONE. So that means children and the mentally disturbed. Killing is not the remedy unless the person is in physical pain that cannot be cured and he will suffer forever. People who commit suicide, in most cases, are not thinking straight and through difficulty and hardships they decide not to commit suicide. Ill give you an example. There was a man who wanted to commit suicide because his wife was cheating on him. He wanted to commit sucide. But one of their relatives turned him into the police and he went into a mental hospital. That man cursed and cursed and said how he was suffering and how he was going to kill himself when he got the chance. However after multiple weeks of solitude and constant counseling.... he got better. He is now married, has a kid, and got a promotion. Catering to people whims is not always in that person's best interest.....especially if they want to commit suicide

I will readdress his doctor's opinion's on PAS in my second contention. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia without consent. My opponent does not actually refute my argument, but rather attacks the validity of my sources. He states that my ncbi source in C1 is a mere opinion, so it doesn't matter, right? Wrong, if we just so happen to look at the bottom and see his sources we can see a trememdous amount of creditable sources that he has site. Okay so what, he has valid sources? Well if we observe our J. Pereira we can see that he is the author of several medical papers and is a very creditable source. (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Secondly, he isn't the only source that I use in my argument that I've made last round. I've made two as this was the second article. (Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j. healthpol.2008.10.003) He also states that my argumentation was false, but this is incorrect as the Euthanasias without consent are that of the doctor terminating the person's life when they do not wish it to end. This simply mirrors that of putting a baby into a microwave and "drying them off. " It's not correct. Plus I've showed that even with it legal we can see that there is still a black market for euthanasia so it does not solve that problem what-so-ever. Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually woke up to be on the O’Rielily Show. (. http://www.rense.com...) They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. (. http://www.nysrighttolife.org...) Contention 2: Slippery Slope argument. My opponent only discounts my argument as a slippery slope, but states that it doesn't have any support claims, but the two examples that he put up on petistools were the examples I used and I showed that their pregresssion has lead to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. It all started with legalizing PAS and is happening in other parts of the World. Even the US. Just like in Belgium now, people are able to euthanize children, which I had brought up last round. You can see how this is becoming socially acceptable as the numbers and the rates of euthanasias are increasing and in some cases doubling. The cases of Euthanasia in both Belgium and Neatherlands have doubled and skyrocketed since they had been able to legalize it and this is proof of this becoming a norm. There is plenty of information on euthanasia avaliable as several European nations have been doing this for years. Now once again, I understand that Pro is against involuntary euthanasia, but the fact is that I have show that by supporting this will lead to the fact of it getting legalized as it has led to the ability for children to be euthanized by the word of their parents in Belgium in 2009. So I just extend my arguments across the board. I also extend my moral decay argument. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide 21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicide Physician Characteristics: 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide Physicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South (. http://euthanasia.procon.org...) Contention 3: Self-Ownership and sickness My opponent here only quotes about my entire third Contention says I'm wrong and that's it. He doesn't refute it or anything and because of that I extend it across.

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...

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

Thanks for the topic, Pro. My opponent case is easily countered by either a.) dismissing or revising the Hippocratic oath (as this sole justification seems rather arbitrary when considering the quality of life of millions) or still less controversially b.) that doctors need not administer active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia does not violated the Hippocratic oath or Canada's criminal code, so my opponent's resolution has already been adequately countered. I will still further this by suggesting the legitimate option of providing non-physicians whose sole responsibility would oversee and participate in active euthanasia. This successfully counters my opponents sole contention regarding the role of the doctor in euthanasia. I remind my opponent that no new evidence or contentions can be ethically introduced in the final round.

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?

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.

the word "murder" implies a very evil intent to bring the most severe harm imaginable upon another person. But with physician assisted suicide there is NO evil intent and NO desire to bring harm upon another person. And "murder" means the killing of another person. But there is no other person killing in physician assisted suicide. The patient is the one killing themselves, making it their decision to end their life. I don't see a victim of murder pointing at the murderer and saying" you can kill me now". The physician is just there to help the patient by giving them a choice and it is there decision to partake in that choice or not.

If a person wants to end their life, that is their problem. However, If we hospitals use euthanasia, that will lead us down a slippery slope. Soon, we will be using euthanasia on the elderly, mentally retarded people, or anyother people we consider to not be a help to society. It's also against the hippocratic oath, which states, "I will not give poison to anyone though asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a plan."

Abortion should be legalized because everybody mistakes and the baby might have defects that family can not support and the baby might be in pain for life with that defect. Sometimes young women make mistakes and accidentally get pregnant, if they are unprepared financially and emotionally they should have the option of having an abortion. When the person finds out the baby has a defect and the family can't support the costs to support the child or the child will live in pain for his/her life because of the defect, it is ok to put it out of its misery.