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

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Critical Analysis

Contention 1: Unreported and Non-consensual Euthanasia
A critical issue in the debate over euthanasia is the prevalence of unreported cases and instances where euthanasia is performed without the consent of the patient. In certain jurisdictions, approximately 900 cases of euthanasia are carried out annually without the patient's explicit consent, and half of these cases are not officially reported (1). In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were attributed to euthanasia, equating to 2,410 individuals, with one in five cases occurring without consent (2). A Belgian study found that 32% of euthanasia cases were performed without consent (3).

Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument
A key concern is the slippery slope argument, which suggests that once euthanasia is legalized, it may lead to the acceptance of other, more controversial forms of euthanasia, such as involuntary euthanasia. For instance, the Dutch initially defined euthanasia as "killing in 1950" but later redefined it as "a quick and easy death" in 1981 (5). In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association stated that euthanasia without the patient's request would be considered murder or killing. However, in 2001, they supported a law legalizing non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia (3). The 2001 law also allowed children aged 12-16 to be euthanized with parental consent, even though the child is not considered capable of making such a decision (4). The number of euthanasia cases in Belgium has doubled since 1998, with the rate of involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia increasing from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007 (3).

Contention 3: The Impact on Doctors and Patients
Legalizing euthanasia can have a significant impact on doctors, as it blurs the line between healing and killing. A study found that 42% of physicians had both religious and non-religious objections to physician-assisted suicide, while 31% had no objection (7). In the United States, 79% of Asian doctors, 71

“Dying is not a crime.” R13; Jack KevorkianBody autonomy is the ultimate point in this argument, the concept that each individual has control over their own body and that inviolability overrides any external individual’s morals or feeling about how you may use your own body.The likely sources of interference with an individual’s right to body autonomy in the case of euthanasia are; 1) Medical professionals2) The state (government)3) Religion – Moral4) Family I will make efforts to address each with some level of detail.Medical Professionals."First do no harm." Well, that seems somewhat clear, and most of us have used this statement attached to the medical world, often with “Hippocratic Oath” in the same sentence. There is, however, some issues with the statement. It is nowhere IN the Hippocratic Oath! [1][2]. The oath does contain some pertinent passages to our topic. “I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.” What a great statement. It is warning the young healer that the application of his skills should have limits apart from his own skills. That “therapeutic nihilism” [3] or skepticism of any and all options should be avoided.But wait, there’s more!"I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug."“... Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”“I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.”I quote almost the entirety of the modern oath above, as it is a wonderful statement. “…warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.” “If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility…”There’s a lot of good stuff in there. Even some that may be beneficial to con in this debate. On balance, the oath is a spectacular statement for how physicians should approach their patients. One thing is clear, the oath is speaks to balance in treatment, not rigidity. It does not insist that physicians treat a patient past his consent. It asks the doctor to be humble and receptive to his patient, to the patient’s problems outside of the medical issues, and that may include dropping the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.The medical professional has no obligation to violate the patient’s body autonomy.The StateI wonder about the order of my points, and may reorder them later. The State is the only current absolute bar to euthanasia, and therefor may deserve higher placement on the list.The question of where the state gains the power to limit an individual’s right to body autonomy as it relates to euthanasia is questionable. Where, potentially, the individual gains the right is less murky. It’s the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution [4]. The current interpretation of the amendment as it related to body autonomy has not extended to euthanasia yet. “The right of privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences.” [4], but is clearly on its way to being tested.Government, apart from doctorial regimes, must reflect the will of the governed. Provided any proposed law does not violate the constitutional restraint, government must do the bidding of the people. In this, the message is clear. 7 in 10 Americans back Euthanasia [5].There is nothing restraining the government from extending body autonomy to include euthanasia.Religion – Moral.This section of objection has little gray area as it relates to the question. With few exceptions, all major religions reject euthanasia, and body autonomy in other subjects – notably abortion.That there is little decent from a common opinion does not mean that this section is without need for discussion. There is no doubt that in our country religion should not interfere with legality. That, however, is naïve. The collective morals of the society inform the laws of the same, there for a discussion of morals is a cornerstone of the debate, and since we are talking the United States, Christianity plays a major role in the debate.Let’s start with the owner’s manual for the faith, the Bible. Similarly to the misunderstanding about the Hypocritical Oath, the bible has nothing directly to say about euthanasia [6]. This passage from the bible rang in my head, driving me to search - "Since his days are determined, The number of his months is with You; And his limits You have set so that he cannot pass” - (Job 14:5). Well, as I am often told, the lord works in mysterious ways, and I can’t possibly see how his will is usurped through euthanasia. There seems nothing that says that the load can’t work through the individual, or through a physician, or a family member, in determining the number of days. One could point to “thou shalt not kill", but that must be wrong. Well, it is commonly accepted to be “murder” not kill [7]. The bible sure wouldn’t say “kill” as it seems to be the topic of so much material in the book. No, murder is the right word. Since to be murder, a killing must be illegal, that’s what makes it murder! Since the material in the bible related to the subject is so thin, it must religion working outside the bounds of the Bible. If that’s the case, I don’t see how Christianity can deny euthanasia as a body autonomy right. FamilyAn individual’s family is a critical in this debate. They are critical because in many cases, medical decisions must fall to the family. In the case of Schiavo in Florida we saw an interesting clash of family. The question about the will of the patient was murky to her parents, and crystal clear to her husband. A Living will would have cleared up the mess about her intent, and made clear her choice. I think I will save more on family for another round. Hippocratic Oath Modern[1] http://guides.library.jhu.edu...Hippocratic Oath Greek [2] http://guides.library.jhu.edu...Therapeutic Nihilism[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...Personal Autonomy – legal[4] https://www.law.cornell.edu...Poll - Euthanasia[5] http://www.gallup.com...The Bible and euthanasia[6] https://carm.org...Bible "thou shalt not murder"[7] https://www.biblegateway.com...

It am not saying it's for people we don't see fit to help society because than of course everybody would be offing themselves. Euthanasia would be beneficial to those who are terminally ill and who are in pain. These people should have the choice whether or not to end their own life. In addition the oath yes states that doctors should practice medicine ethically. . but each doctor must have different ethics? or ethics mean different things to different doctors?

Once again, the poll you have used makes a great point for my side of the debate. Most people want to legalize assisted death. However, as I stated before, they want it legalized because of the pain they are in, not to be selfish. Yes, they want to end their own pain, but can you really call that selfish? They are not only thinking of themselves. They are thinking of their loved ones as well. They don't want their family to see them suffering. As for your statement on rape and how legalizing it would make women more responsible, I don't want to even start on that subject and how appalling the statement you just said was. Yes, patients do have the right to refuse treatment. However, with a terminal illness, there is not treatment. That is why it is called a terminal illness. They are only given the medication to help with the pain, which will eventually take control of their bodies, and a respirator to help them breath near the end of the illness. When a patient wants to die with dignity, they usually mean they want to die before the illness takes over so much that they cannot do anything by themselves. As the lady in the video you showed in your last argument said. She didn't want to get to the point where she was answering questions with blink once for yes and twice for no. She wanted it to end before she got that bad. We are not sending messages to people with depression saying that suicide is ok. We are NOT talking about mental health issues in this debate. So many people think assisted death is ok compared to suicide because they are for different reasons. Suicide is done by people who are depressed or have another mental disorder that CAN be treated. Assisted death is done by patients who are terminally ill, in pain, and CANNOT be treated. People who are terminally ill are choosing one death over another. Let's say that you were suffering from a terminal illness. At one point, the pain will be so bad that no drug will be able to treat it. You could spend days in that kind of pain. What would you choose? To die before the pain gets so bad it can't be controlled, or to suffer with that pain for days and die with it? Assisted death would be a more comfortable death for a terminally ill patient. They won't have to feel the uncontrollable pain surge through their body as they are about to die. Somebody who is paralyzed can still live their life without pain if the paralysis is not caused by a terminal illness. Therefore they would have no reason for assisted death. Terminal illness has NO cure. So a terminally ill cancer patient would have no treatments that would work to cure the disease. Legalizing assisted death does not mean that they should stop looking for a cure for the disease or that the research would receive less funding or that it would remove the incentive to improve life. It only means that until the cure is found, we don't let people suffer in pain. As for the video. Every terminally ill patient handles things differently. That is why assisted death would be an OPTION. Not something that is forced on them. In the video in your previous argument, the daughter and son are not making the mom feel worthless. They asked the mom what she wanted. She wanted to end the pain. The daughter wanted what was best for her mom. She wanted what her mom wanted. To end the pain. Saying that the moms fear of answering question by blinking is not realistic is a lie. It is what can happen to terminal patients near the end. They are placed on a respirator to help them breath, so they cannot speak, or the muscles in their body just simply stopped working, so they cannot say anything. The parents gave the child the choice of heaven or hospital because the next time she got sick with something as simple as a cold, she would have died. If she chooses the hospital, they would only keep her hooked up to machines until she died. If she stayed at home, she could die peacefully in her own bed with her family. What she was told was not a lie. They were only telling her what I told you in the way that a five year old would understand. Even if a patient does not choose assisted death, their family will still be counting down the time they have left with them. The reason it could be so important to a terminally ill patient to decide when they die is because it could be a comfort to them knowing that they won't have to die in so much pain and they will know exactly when they will die. Yes, not everyone knows when they will die. But in the case of a terminally ill patient, they do have and assessment of how much time they have left. Even without assisted death, the family would still witness the terminally ill family member die. It is not something they can stop from happening. In the article I shared with you she is making the point that no one can make this choice for her. No one has the right to make the choice for her. It is her life. She wants to make the decisions about it. You said "The reality is no-one is making any decision to make her suffer, or saying she should suffer". When you do not allow a terminal patient the option of assisted death, you are making the decision for them. Since this is the last round I will summarize the key points to my argument below: Options the patients right to choose what happens in their life to end the pain it is inhumane to let someone suffer against their will statistics show that most people want to legalize assisted death terminal illnesses have no cures Just because assisted death is legalized doesn't mean you stop looking for cures * just to clarify, this debate has nothing to do with mental illness.

So, having said her final goodbye to her husband, the wife is sitting in the departure lounge at Zurich Airport reading an English-language newspaper and she is aghast when she reads a headline: "CURE FOUND FOR THE DREADED LURGI". The dreaded lurgi was her recently-departed husband's condition. "Oh dear! " she exclaimed, "if only I hadn't agreed to help him commit suicide, we could have had a family together after all. Still, never mind, there's no point crying over spilt milk. On the plus side the house all belongs to me now, and, of course, the life insurance money will be of some comfort to me in my time of grief. " So, we can see that, in this case, a young man killed himself in vain, and it is similar to the case my opponent cited where a young woman "miraculously" recovered just before the doctors killed her because it would have been very different if she had taken the lethal dose a few weeks earlier. Then she too would have died needlessly. But what about the suicide clinics position in all this? In most countries in the developed world health care is funded by the state so that treatment provided according to need rather than the ability to pay. However, in the United States health care is run along commercial lines. With this being the case, suicide clinics will be in it for the profit and the primary responsibility of the clinics' management will be to the shareholders rather than the patients, creating an obvious potential for conflicts of interest. Let's look at the way estate agents are remunerated, for example. The more houses they sell, the more they get paid, so there is an obvious incentive for them not to be completely open and honest and about properties with potential buyers. It's a similar situation with used car salesmen, or investment bankers, or lawyers, or any amount of other professions where pay is performance-related. So will we see doctors in suicide clinics paid according to how many patients they kill? I hope not, but even so, there will be pressure on them to make money for the clinic. Let's now consider the position of a physician in a suicide clinic, Doctor Kindheart, who is very conscientious and who ensures that no patient takes their own life unless there is absolutely no possibility of recovery and their decision was wholly their own made without any undue influence from their family. However, this professional approach means that he assists many fewer patients to take their lives than his colleague, Doctor Snuff, who dispatches patients on a wholesale basis without due regard for medical ethics. One day the hospital manager calls Dr Kindheart into his office. "What the hell are you playing at, Kindheart? " the manager rants. "The Cohens are our best clients, we've euthanized three wealthy relatives of theirs so far this year but when you and Dr Snuff were asked to sign off the fourth, you refused to play ball. " The manager then takes out a report and reads from it. "Dr Snuff"s considered medical opinion," he says, "is that 'the patient is suffering from acute Allergic rhinitis with severe complications. It is only a matter of time before the patient dies and his life isn't worth living', while you have concluded that 'the patient is suffering from allergic rhinitis, more commonly known as hay fever, which is a treatable condition and not, in itself, fatal. The patient's condition is complicated by the fact that he is also clinically depressed and, therefore, is not in a fit state of mind to give his consent to be euthanized. ' What do you say to that, Kindheart? " "My report," replied Dr Kindheart, "was written in strict accordance with the guidelines and, furthermore, I consider it my professional duty to protect the interests of vulnerable patients from abuse of the system from families with vested interests in their deaths. In this case, as beneficiaries of the patient's estate and I concluded that the Cohen family had put their own financial interests ahead of the patient's best interests. I'm sorry, sir, but I firmly believe in upholding medical ethics. " "Screw medical ethics, Kindheart," raged the manager "I'm running a business here, not a charity, and unless you get your act together you'll be heading for the door. Now get out of my office and get back to what I pay you to do: that's kill patients. " That manager is not a very nice man, is he boys and girls? But ruthless businessmen operating in cut-throat commercial marketplaces where competition is fierce cannot afford to be nice and that's another reason why I affirm that assisted suicide should not be legalized in the United States. Thank you.

The US national library of medicine did a study on the attitude of terminally ill patients toward euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. In this study they had 70 patients. 32 men and 38 women with a median survival of 44.5 days. 73% of these patients believed that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. The main reasons for choosing this option where pain and their right to choose. As for the pain. Yes it can be managed, but that does not mean the pain will go away. The further into the illness the patient is, the more pain there will be because of the illness spreading and taking over their body. Drugs can only control so much, and a doctor can only give so much medicine before it becomes dangerous. By dangerous I mean too much medicine could cause an overdose, or could cause other side effects such as difficulty breathing which would add more pain for the patient. As for freezing the patient, I am not sure what you mean, but I am going to assume you are talking about cryogenic ally freezing. To be cryogenically frozen the patient must first be pronounced dead. It is illegal to cryogenically freeze someone who is still alive. There are scientist and doctors out there who are always looking for a cure to every known disease out there. however, it takes time to find a cure, and once found it takes an average of 7 years to get the drug into the market. Given how most terminal patients only have 6 months to live, they won't have time to get the drug. Some illnesses do take longer then 6 months to kill, such as aids. However, most patients don't think about ending their suffering, or don't want to end their suffering until it is too much for them to handle. There are certain medical things a doctor looks at to determine the amount of time a terminal patient has left such as how far a cancer has spread and how fast the illness is taking over someone's body. They might not always be accurate, but it is only a guess, which most of the times is pretty accurate. it might not be accurate right down to the last second or minute or hour, but it is close. Selfish is defined as lack of consideration for another. in the case of a person not letting someone make the decision to end their pain is selfish because they are not considering the fact that the person is suffering. With assisted death, the patient can choose when to end their suffering. That would give the patient time to spend with their loved ones and they would know how much time they have left with them. It would also save the patients family from having to watch their loved one suffer in pain. Respect is defined as deep admiration for someone. when you respect the patients decision to end their pain it is not sending a message that their life is less precious than anyone Else's. It is saying that you respect that person's decision. They have a right to say what happens in their life. to say that they don't have a decision is sending a bad message to others. it is kind of like saying you don't think they can make their own decision, as if they were incompetent. Legalizing assisted death would not cause more terminal illnesses. If it is legalized it gives the terminally ill patient more options. It gives them control of the illness. They won't lose respect for themselves because they are given another option. Saying that a terminally ill patient at the end of there life is not the person you once knew is not devaluing the patient. it is simply stating that the person who once was able to run miles without stopping, loved to laugh and hang out with friends, and paint, is no longer able to do that. they lost the things they loved and once looked forward to doing every day. yes they still have their family, but they can't do anything with them like they could before the illness which causes sadness. You would be watching someone who once was happy and always had a smile slowly wither away in the pain into someone unfamiliar to you. Their is nothing to fear but fear itself. so why should someone fear death, and not knowing when they will die? Giving the patient the option to end their pain would put them more at ease and give them time not to fear, or lessen the fear of death. http://zidbits.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.skirsch.com...

Hello everyone, Let's rap up....Contention 1A.) Contention 1 does an incredible job of stating facts, these facts include: #of euthanizations done without written or explicit consent and # of all deaths defined as euthanization. The facts that he lists all apply to either The Netherlands or Belgium as can be noted by looking at his citation, some may even be statistics from combining both countries data. There is a problem with his layout though. The problem being that contention 1 isnt an argument. It is a conglomeration of unrelated facts, the problem being not, that the facts are a conglomeration, but that these facts are not tied together to form any argument, they are simply facts, which without stated reason he calls "horrible". They have no context, no stated date for each fact, or indications as to which fact relates to which country. The citation in contention 1 of his argument indicates that all facts presented before it apply to Belgium and The Netherlands however at one point he simply says, "1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia", to which I must respond, which nation, Belgium or The Netherlands? The facts are all over the place and are inconsistent as to who and when they partain. On another note, I must correct an improper assumption which is being promoted. That assumption being that EUTH without consent means, EUTH against the person's will. That would be plain murder, what this means is that the euthanization was done without explicit written legal consent. These people indicate in some manner that they wish to end their life. As for the ones that were unreported, this is because most of the doctors who preformed them didn't consider them to be acts of EUTH.B.) Now I will argue against claims made in Lannan's last speech. Firstly Let me state that I did not simply attack the validity of his sources, the source bit was simply an add-on which I will readdress momentarily. I refuted Lannan's contention 1 by stating that there is no real argument to refute save possibly an assumption that EUTH without consent means EUTH against the patients' will, which I have already covered. As I have said, There is no argument in contention 1, there is only a conglomeration of facts which do not logically relate to one another. This relates to contention 2 so you will see what I mean when I discuss logical fallacies later on.Now I would like to talk about my opponents author in contention 1, J. pereira. Right off the bat, lets talk about that list of credible studies which J. takes a part in. Just because he is in credible studies does not mean that he is in general credible, in how many of those studies was he the main author/ researcher. Secondly, just because he is an expert in one field of study, does that imply that he is an expert in the field of The Slippery-Slope of PAS? certainly not. I'll let the audience know that J. is a Chemical Biotech patent attorney with a PhD in genetics. So how is he a credible source? -http://www.oblon.com...Now I'll move onto Mrs.Terri Schiavo. Here is your claim: "Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually woke up"I would like to let everyone know that Mrs. Terri Schiavo never recovered from her vegetative state of 13 years. Her tubes were removed after a very, and I mean very long series of legal/judicial and executive events to determine whether or not to remove her feeding tubes took place. In the end the courts overruled George Bush's legislation to keep her alive and her feeding tubes were pulled, she never showed any sign of recovery and died a few days later. The woman you reference who recovered from her unresponsive state, of 70 days, was a woman named a Mrs. Kate Adamson in 1995. She had her tubes pulled in 2005 and immediately afterward began to recover, They plugged her back in and she fully recovered, she lives to this day. My question is, even if you were right, how would this hurt my case? if anything the events of Kate Adamson confirm the resolution. Kate was in a completely unresponsive state and was unable to communicate in any form or fashion. Now think about this. If you were stuck in a vegetative state fully aware for the rest of your life, would you really want to be alive, trapped in the cage of your body? If it were me I would be inwardly begging for Physician Assisted Suicide or the like. Contention 2, Oh the fallaciesMy opponent crafts this arguments soley on three things: an assumption, the 'post HOC' fallacy and the 'Slippery Slope' fallacy.The Slippery Slope fallacy: Post HOC fallacy: Here are some facts my opponent uses to craft his argument:a.) The definition of euthinasia at one point simply meant killing people with terminal illness while now it means a painless death to help the terminally ill.b.) The number of people being euthanized in one or two countries has dramatically increasedc.) One medical assosiation supported very strict definitions of euthinasia and later supported less strict definitionsPlease review the Post HOC fallacy, in any of these facts does it really follow that b was caused by a? in other words, does the fact that a definition has changed or that one medical association supported less criminally strict definitions of EUTH really imply that the changes were the result of decreasing moral attitudes? Could it likely be the result of anything else? Yes, and there has been no concrete proofs, inductive nor deductive reasoning's applied to suggest anything else. Please note that these are the result of an unfounded assumption. As for b the same applies because to me all b means is that the Belgians are finally giving people their right to death with dignity not introduced some initiative to begin the genocide of the weak and sick.Here are some common examples of the slippery slope fallacy: "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!" "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die." "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you." "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!" "Once we start letting homosexuals get married, soon enough we'll be allowing sons to marry their fathers and dogs to marry monkeys!"Now here is a quote from my opponent's speech: "It all started with legalizing PAS and...now, people are able to euthanize children [soon enough involuntary EUTH will be legal and rampant]" Contention 3 "My opponent here only quotes about my entire third Contention says I'm wrong and that's it. He doesn't refute it or anything and because of that I extend it across."My opponent doesn't think that I have refuted contention 3 I will now refute that claim by showing how I have indeed refuted his third contention...refute... (had to throw it in there one more time)Premise: "In contention 3 my opponent basically states that the sickly just need to take ownership and get over their pain. I state that most people who are terminally ill aren't irrational they are simply regular people who are in constant and unbearable pain"Warrant: you haven't supported your own claim with evidence so you must "provide evidence stating that all people who are chronically ill are irrational, only then can we accept contention 3."Premise + warrant in opposition of a claim = refutation Studies and evidence I'm running out out space so i'll make this quick. Here I refute Lannan's round 3 studies on professional PAS opinions. His came from 2008 from 2k doctors in one medical assosiation. Mine from 21k doctors in dec 2014 internationally. Clearly my evidence has been consistently better and myargumentation aswell. Thank you for reading

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

It is foolish to assume that life will get magically better for everyone. One should have the freedom to decide rationally on that, and it is only rational that the government assist one's decision on that. For example, euthanasia should be available to people with none-lethal disease. If the person decides that the disease will make his life miserable even though it will not take his life, then that person should have the right to access euthanasia. Of course, there can be miracles, but whether future will be better or not should be decided by the person himself. We should not impose our belief that life will magically get better. It may, but it may not. For people with depression, yes, their ability to decide rationally may be disturbed. In this case, extra caution would be very necessary, but the basic premise does not change. We should not be judging that everyone's life will certainly get better on every case. It is up to the person himself to decide that.

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

I would first like to point out that my points have gone unchallenged by my opponent. He does not deny that laws against voluntary euthanasia are completely at odds with personal autonomy or that the user of ones body has more of a right to control it than a casual observer(at the very least he has shown no reason why a casual observer has the positive right to restrict consensual activities that do not harm others). My opponent has on the other hand decided that no one has enough reason to want to request voluntary euthanasia and so it should be outlawed. Even so, I shall negate each of his points accordingly.1. Patients requesting Euthanasia are depressedMy opponent claims that 90% of patients requesting euthanasia are depressed and that because they are depressed, they are not capable of deciding whether they should live or die. But as I asked previously, why does a casual observer have more of a right to tell one when one can or cannot die than the one who actually possesses the body? The right to self ownership is inalienable. That is, unless it is exchanged away just like any other piece of property whether through mutual exchange or gift. To try to deprive a person of self ownership is thus thievery and immoral.Furthermore, my opponent's source allegedly showing that 90% of patients requesting assisted suicide are depressed was not from a medical journal or website. It was from an editorial by the USA Today from 1993. No medical source was provided. I checked a few different anti-euthanasia websites for a link to the actual article but none was ever provided. So unless my opponent can provide a credible medical source for the level of depression among terminally ill patients being 90%, I will argue that we should not only dismiss this statistic fully, but also move on to focus on those terminally ill patients who request suicide who are not clinically depressed.When looking for credible statistics on euthanasia, it is best to look to places where it is either fully or partially legalized. The Netherlands and the U.S. state, Oregon are some examples. A study by the Oxford Journal of Medicine on the relationship between depression and explicit requests for euthanasia among end of life cancer patients, showed that "Major depression was not a major factor in explicit requests for euthanasia in end-of-life cancer patients in primary care. Further depressed mood was not associated with explicitly requesting euthanasia in this patient group". The patients surveyed were incurable cancer patients with less than a year of life expectancy left. In studies on the subject, there has yet been no clear link shown between incurably ill patients requesting euthanasia and suffering from clinical depression. 2. Terminally ill diseases can be properly researchedHere my opponent argues that because some currently incurable diseases have shown some promise in research and time expected to market drugs, patients should not be allowed to end their own lives. However the estimated wait time for a cure to most terminal illnesses(Certain types of cancer, AIDS, Sarcoidosis) is in the decades, not the single digit years or months that many terminally ill patients have left to live. A cure for every terminal illness is not even close to feasible in the next hundred years. So should patients all over the world who have only a few years to live, or even a few months to live be forced to go through their pain because in a hundred years, a better treatment might come into existence? This still all secondary in that one would still have the right to end their lives with a cure. One controls their own body and ending one's life for whatever reason they want cannot be morally regulated if it is not infringing on another's rights. My opponent can try to bring out reasons why one does not need to commit suicide all he wants but the fact remains that personal autonomy cannot be upheld with any restrictions on one's right to end their life.


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

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be permitted under law?
The legalization of euthanasia should be extended to individuals who no longer wish to continue living, as well as to families where a loved one is unable to make a decision about ending their life due to a lack of awareness about their own existence. It raises an ethical question: why is it considered humane to put down a suffering animal, yet humans are legally obligated to endure suffering until their natural death?

Suicide should not be legalised because it carries a long aftermath effects to the people left to deal with the trauma and to some financial cost.We have the state left to use the resources to try and determine the real cause if whether is authentic or a murder .There is no moral behind this motion so how will the law that protects the community that has made the right to life a fundamental right detor from its mandate.This diabolic act of taking one's life should not be legalised as it exposes the education system that has failed with the issue of building students to have a self esteem also the ability of making resolutions on solving issues.

I also what to thank everyone who took the time to read this debate and judge it, for your role is vital in these debates. I would like to start this debate by stating that my opponent admitted to only having one contention. This means that on a point by point basis, I have won this debate already, for I have more points that are left standing then he does. This is because my points refute his point of personal autonomy to an extent, for if a doctor realizes that a patient is under the strain of depression, they would NEVER allow for euthanasia to be administered to that patient, no matter what my opponent states about personal autonomy. Saving a human life is the primary goal of physicians, and they deal with the depressed no different. So already, I have more points left then my opponent. But I will go into great detail in defending my own and attacking further my opponents point. Also, my opponent dropped trying to argue that depression isn't found in almost all patients requesting euthanasia, admitting his was wrong. If he was wrong about one thing, he is likely to be wrong about another. My opponent suggests that everyone has every right to their body, so long as they don't infringe on others rights. I disproved his point further by stating selective service takes this right away. This means that this right never existed in the way my opponent claims, which is COMPLETE control of themselves whenever. If the government has decided that it is in the best interests of this country to take your body for military service, then that violates personal autonomy; yet I see no protests, no evidence on my opponents parts suggesting what the government is doing is wrong, just a metaphor that is a little over the top. So if this isn't wrong, it isn't wrong to infringe this supposed right again for the sake of that person's life and the lives of others; this is an almost identical reason to that of selective service. Every patient helps further our research against these terminal killers, and by taking ones life, you are flushing all that potentiality down the drain. Depression I would like the reader to understand that on this very day, people in Oregon are being euthanized who actually don't want to be. Depression is very motivating for one to commit suicide or be euthanized; everything feels hopeless. Yet my opponent says that it's ok, because they said they wanted it, no matter the state they were in. Let me give the reader a metaphor of my own; a man with an arrow sticking out of his chest, bleeding profusely, is rushed to the emergency room by family, but he is in a haze because of the shock. He tells the doctors to leave it in, that he wants to die and doesn't care, but his family is insisting the doctor save their beloved father/husband. Would that doctor really put down his tools and say "Sorry, the man wants to die. Oh well, just another day" or would he perform the surgery and save the man's life? It's obviously the latter of the two, because a doctor has an oath he must uphold. If he were to let the man die, that family could sue that doctor and win. Yet, my opponent still insists that the doctor made the right decision? This helps my case for two reasons. It is clear that personal autonomy isn't something that everyone should just obey like the law or should allow to have such leverage over people, for this situation would be one of many that would be acceptable, and according to my opponent, for some reason that's ok. Also, this man can be compared to someone with depression, except the only difference is the doctor can't see the arrow. Depression is a very confusing condition for physicians, and it must be treated with the utmost care, or mistakes will happen that have been happening in places like Oregon, where Euthanasia is already legalized. My opponent tries stating that depression isn't the same as other diseases that control a person's actions; this is, again, just his opinion against the opinions of medical experts that I have previously quoted and sourced. Let the reader make no mistake, depression is an extremely serious variable that MUST be taken into account with all terminally ill patients. When speaking on depressed patients, my opponent starts to actually classify them as a group that we all know about and act around; depression can strike anyone at anytime, and isn't taken lightly. Pro tries stating that if depressed patients don't have the right to personal autonomy, then they shouldn't have the right to driving, marriage, career paths, etc. However, the fact remains that once a physician or trained psychiatrist catches on to an individual's depression, they take extreme measures, involving therapy and medicine, to cure this depression. There is no need to limit a depressed person's actions because medical experts would cure said depression if they would know about it, because they know how dangerous it can be to a person who, without it, would be completely normal and capable of making proper decisions. My opponent then claims that my main point is irrelevant due to selective service and suicide being illegal, but I fail to see how my opponent makes this connection or how this invalidates my argument. If anything, it hurts my opponents argument and should be taken as such by the reader, for he stated himself that ". .. the fact that suicide is illegal further show that we have no right to kill ourselves regardless of our psychological state. " He states right here that we have no right to kill our self, completely invalidating his argument which is that we have complete right to kill ourselves. I really don't see how this hurts my position that I stand for on this debate topic. Research I would like to note that my opponent hasn't refuted this point at all , for he just gives opinion as to why research might take too long. My opponent then says "show why terminally ill patients will start being cured before they die of their disease. " I never said that I would be proving this, but proving that these patients give way to research that can cure these diseases in the future. The source I cited earlier, . http://leda.law.harvard.edu... , in depth shows why these patients are crucial in medical research of these diseases, but I'm not going to sit here and bring up more info that my opponent can't retort. Another thing my opponent stated that is interesting was in response to my ending of round three, about euthanasia hindering medical research and ending human life. He tries saying that legalizing euthanasia would not make patients suicidal, but they would die none-the-less, and these deaths, at this point, we can all see would be pointless. | Conclusion | I have proved that both my contentions are left standing due to a lack of evidence on Pro's part and the fact that personal autonomy has it's limits. If Euthanasia were to be legalized, so many people would die needlessly to a monster called depression. Or is that monster Euthanasia, just reached by the efforts of depression? Either way, my case against Euthanasia is sound and stands on all fronts. Throughout this debate, I have proved through a plethora of sources and medical opinions, why my contentions are right and fully relevant to the topic while my opponent only suggests his opinions and a source (the oxford source which can be found in the comments) which was completely invalid after exposed it. My opponent then realized this, and dropped the source all together, trying to get the reader to forget yet another mistake on his part. We deal with the depressed by treating them, the terminally ill should be no different. Thank you Tim_Spin, and I thank the reader.

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

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.

I think I should have been clearer in my reason of arguing, I can find no logical evidence of suicide of any sort being even remotely moral or justifiable. The united states is creating a drug used for the sole purpose of suicide in patients with terminal illness Every Day more than 2,500 kids(12 to 17) abuse prescription drugs, Depressants, opioids and antidepressants are the leading cause of suicide by 45%.Of the 1.4 million drug-related emergency room admissions in 2005, 598,542 were associated with abuse of pharmaceuticals alone or with other drugs. In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration found that abuse of the painkiller Fentanyl killed more than 1,000 people that year in the US. It is thirty to fifty times more powerful than heroin. Fentanyl is an opioid medication. An opioid is sometimes called a narcotic. Fentanyl is used as part of anesthesia to help prevent pain after surgery or other medical procedure. But teens and adults are using them to satisfy a desperate need to leave the life they live, I don"t care about religion, I don"t care about body autonomy. What I care about is the fact the U.S is even considering making suicide legal to a "certain degree, at no degree is it ok to tell someone they have a right to kill their selves. What I care about is the message that this law is sending to teens all over the state, I"m not the smartest girl but I know a stupid idea when I see one ,and this is the dumbest idea congress could have ever created. Body autonomy is not the ultimate point in this argument. The point in this argument and is that this one decision is going to end up stirring a nation Section 443.2 of SB 128 states "this bill would make it a felony to knowingly alter or forge a request for medication to an individuals life without his or her authorizations or to conceal or destroy a rescission of a request for medication, if it is done with the intent or effect of causing the individuals death. The bill would make it a felony to knowingly coerce or exert undue influence on an individual to request medication for the purpose of ending his or her life or to destroy a rescission of a request." There are multiple way around this bill and flaws that could end up with citizens going to jail and being charged with homicide if they make one fatal mistake. http://www.drugs.com... http://www.drugfreeworld.org... Everything else I have to say is completely in my own opinion. Debate cant only be supported by facts because no one wins that way you have to appeal to the peoples emotion. I debate because I feel strongly about something, and I don"t care if people say I"m wrong, The whole purpose of debating is to open your side of the story. Its not about who has better facts or who"s a better speaker, because at the end of the day how much of that is really going to matter? None of it, because you still have to make a choice. Put yourself in their families" shoes, their loved ones are dying of terminal illness, and kids are killing themselves. Wouldn't you want your little girl, or your big sister your brother or even your father to hold out for just a few more minutes so you can tell them how much you love them, and tell everyone that they were survivors not quitters? I want to fight to my last breath. It doesn't matter if I win this debate or not, and I probably won"t, but I want everyone to know exactly how I feel about Physician assisted suicide.

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

firstly, i would like to say i am not personally against euthanasia i am actually pro. But i need to debate and this is a interesting topic. I can agree with pro that it is a kind and benevolent act. It is a good thing. However, isnt there alternatives to them actually dying? not all the time but the majority of the time there is?

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.

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...)

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