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

Euthanasia

Euthanasia ought to be legalized in the United States, but strictly on a voluntary basis. An individual possesses the right to life, which inherently includes the right to end it. Why force someone to endure suffering when they have the option not to? No one should be compelled to endure unnecessary or unwanted pain. After enduring the hardships of a terminal illness and battling for an extended period, the afflicted may understandably become weary. If a peaceful and secure method to terminate this suffering is available, individuals should at least have the autonomy to opt for assisted suicide.

Regardless. Once you put down that one can choose to die, what do you do if that does become an issue in the court system and justice system. Lets sy someone is murdered and the person says that the victim wanted to die, what grants the doctor more powerful than a criminal why should a doctor be able to take the life. If anything the person should be taking his own life. It should be just suicide but this is about Euthanasia. Rebuttal"what if a person has a disease where medicine doesn't work and euthanasia is the only option?" 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.http://www.ethicsforschools.org...That is from the site i introduced here."We shouldn't be able to tell someone what they can or can't do.Then you can not establish order or maintain a society. If we should not tell someone what they can or can not do then we should not tell people they can not murder, assault and things of that nature. Regardless of wether it is consensual it is still technically murder. Just as if i have a friend that asks me to kill them and i do then it is murder. Its under the same juristiction. "how would you feel if someone was making you live in pain because you wanted to be euthanized and you couldn't do that?"Again it can be noted that doctors dealing with terminally ill patients, notice that the patients suffer from depression and lack of self worth. What if death is not what they want? What if they just want the pain to go away which as stated above can be temporarily aleiviated."If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period." This goes along with medical ethics. Doctors are here to help save lives regardless. You still have not show why it "needs to be" like that. Your argument is based around "if someone is in pain they have the right to end their life." 1. What about suicidal teenagers, adults, kids. You might say "well they are not terminally ill" but, since depression is classified as a mental disorder and one trys to take his or her own life that is the same boundries as terminally ill. That person is gonna try to kill themselves and its a matter of time before they do. So, do we allow it or try to fight it and help it? If one wanted to go as technical to say "everyone is terminally ill" one could. We are all guranteed to die and that death should be prolonged when it comes to terminally ill patients. Im sure there were millions of people in modern times who wished death could have been prolonged. We should not undermine the research and allow so much power to a doctor in these situations.My argument stands as1. It undermines medical research2. There are ways to allievate the symptoms and fight it3. Terminally ill patients often suffer from depression (http://jco.ascopubs.org...)4. Contradicts right to live.The second link is a study i found interesting that talks about terminally ill patients and how depression plays a huge part in decision making.

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...

Thank you for the argument Often, the discussion revolves around the right to life; anti-euthanasia proponents argue that euthanasia infringes on a person"s fundamental right to live. What they fail to see is that our "life" as human beings implies death. Without death, we do not have "human life" by its very definition. Like black and white or two sides of a coin, human life cannot occur without death. Therefore for those that argue that every man has the fundamental right to live, they unknowingly also agree that every man has the fundamental right to die. Because we can determine the course of our lives by our own will, we have the right to live our lives and determine our own course. Naturally it follows that the same self-determining capacity we have as human beings also gives us the fundamental right to determine how we die. It is also important to consider that the right to life has no say over the right to die. The right to live and the right to die are two separate, although related rights. They are also mutually exclusive in the sense that the right to live concerns itself only with self-determined life and ends with the right to die. The right to die on the other hand begins where life ends in death. While you live, you exercise your right to life; when your life ends, you exercise your right to die. It is important to consider that we refer to self-determined or natural death and not death resulting from someone directly removing from you your life, thereby restricting your right to live. If such significant weight in this sense is given to our right to live, should we not also give equal weight to our right to die.

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.

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.

By legalizing euthanasia we will be accepting that the lives of the ones that are disabled or sick worth less than others. Allowing euthanasia will make the doctors feel less commitment to saving lives.

Do not worry about your spelling mistakes as its a safe bet that I will make more even on the best computer ;) "Some people who are physically or mentally ill are usually incapable. .. ." Thank God. I am a trained EMT, and I can tell you that people who are deemed mentally ill have no right to choice in rejection of treatment for regular injury's that are not related to a suicide attempt. or even the choice to not go to the hospital. Why? because there mind is not in its best shape, and it is considered negligent to leave them uncared for and we know someone called us to the scene even if it wasn't the injured person. What are some good indicators of mental illness? well desire for suicide is one, so we have a self sustaining circle that keeps adheeding to there choice of death an option for us. The only way to be out of the circle with that choice is if you made it ahead of time with a DNR order and we find the DNR tag on your neck. such decisions are considered in your good mental state and they are not request for suicide, just a peaceful death when the time naturally comes. ". .. . or frightened of killing them self, therefore want someone to do it for them. " There is a good reason they are frightened of it. Fear is our body warning us of something quite often, the fact that so many have this fear in common show it is not irrational fear caused by mental illness. "As a liberal society we should look at this from the victims perspective and how damaged they must feel not knowing how long they are going to live? When the pains going to stop? , So why is it taken in such a crude way? ." They have asked for something crazy. with the logic that they desire no more pain, and equated that with death. but death is so much more than lack of pain. and pain sometimes ends in this life without the aid of death. This testimony comes from other EMS members I know who have been it way longer than I have. You remember the DNR order I mentioned? well even in those cases were it seems its time to die and the person has a DNR there have been cases that the individual with the DNR have used what breath and strength they had to grab the EMT and get out the words 'I want to live'. one individual had the DNR logo tattooed to his chest . http://justinsomnia.org... just so the EMT's wouldn't miss when they came but changes there mind when the moment of truth comes. This shows us that a decision for death perspectively has a tendency to change right before its about to happen. what if someone asked for you to invoke there suicide and after its about to happen they have lost any ability to let you know they are changing there mind. If we are to accept ones right to choose death in any situation it can only be done by the individual themselves, for they have to keep there commitment all the way to the moment the deed is done. the know there thoughts. there can be no failure to communicate a change of mind. "The weight of life varies f rom one person to another. In other words, life is just a relative value. .. .. " Uh, No. Just because I end up with more responsibilities on my back than you do does not make it less valuable, or more valuable. Just because you might have a deeper hole you have to dig yourself out of in life does not make yours more or less valuable than mine. You are worth something simply because 'you are. ' The reason life is treated as inherently valuable is because it is. it is from this foundation that we learn that things like slavery or any form of social inequality are wrong, the situation of another does not make them less than us in respect to life so we should be humane in our treatment of others. Breaking this foundational holding by justifying suicide of course will not lead back to these evils immediately but every great evil starts with a more unnoticeable evil. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. "Im not saying euthanasia/assisted suicide should be use in all cases of illness, but i do believe it should be a choice for people who are desperately ill so they are reassured" reassured of what? that things will be good for them after there suicide? "Death is an option that people should have because death is similar to the options we already have. We are allowed to take risky choices for our own benefit, such as tobacco, or alcohol, as long as we know the consequences of the act. " We know absolutely nothing about the consequences of death. have you died before? was it for 3 days? a week? tell me what it is like. tell me of someone who knows for sure deaths mysteries. what happens after Death is as unknown as it gets for the world. . http://familydoctor.org...

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.

Rebuttal Your argument is very weak. You said, “Not practicing euthanasia at the request of the dying person is violating a person’s rights, creating an economic burden, interfering with a doctor"s job…” This is a form of a fallacy that begs the question. No evidence is offered to support your claim. You failed to explain how not practicing euthanasia violates an individual right, creates economic burden, and interferes with doctor’s job. All you did was to make evidence your own claim, but in reality no evidence was given or any explanation for those claims. Points It devalues human life. This is one reason why euthanasia is not acceptable. Proponents of euthanasia, however, do not believe it degrades life and for them patients who suffer from incurable disease should be afforded with a choice whether or not to end their sufferings. But the problem with that, it is not always the case, not all reasons for accepting euthanasia center on the suffering of a patient, other reasons are decreasing medical costs and other monetary reasons. For example, a report issued by EPAC, the Economic Planning and Advisory Council, a government think-tank. The report discussed the rising costs of medical care for the elderly, and rising hospital costs in general, and actually suggested that euthanasia might be an option in dealing with this crisis. There was no mention of suffering or the humane treatment of dying human beings. Instead, cold utilitarian considerations of cost-cutting were given as the reason to consider euthanasia.1 That becomes problem when reasons, other than the suffering of the patient, are given in support with euthanasia. It degrades the life of person by saying that his life is less important than the money that might be saved if euthanasia is accepted. Life is very sacred, accepting euthanasia destroys that sanctity. It may be your life but according to God, you don’t have the right to take it. Another reason against euthanasia, It neither preserve human life nor protect the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion In Washington v. Glucksberg ,the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that a right to assistance in committing suicide was not protected by the Due Process Clause.2 Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion for the court. His decision reversed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a ban on physician assisted suicide embodied in Washington's Natural Death Act of 1979 was a violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court held that because assisted-suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest, it was not protected under the 14th Amendment. As previously decided in Moore v. East Cleveland, liberty interests not "deeply rooted in the nation's history" do not qualify as being a protected liberty interest. Assisted-suicide, the court found, had been frowned upon for centuries and a majority of the States had similar bans on assisted suicide. Rehnquist found the English common-law penalties associated with assisted suicide particularly significant. For example, at early common law, the state confiscated the property of a person who committed suicide. Like Blackmun in Roe v. Wade, Rehnquist used English common law to establish American tradition as a yardstick for determining what rights were "deeply rooted in the nation's history." Rehnquist cited Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the opinion.3 The Court felt that the ban was rational in that it furthered such compelling state interests as the preservation of human life and the protection of the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. It also prevented those moved to end their lives because of financial or psychological complications. The Court also felt that if the Court declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutionally protected right, they would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary euthanasia.4 Similarly, in Vacco v. Quill, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great pain, was a legitimate state interest that was well within the authority of the state to regulate. In brief, this decision established that, as a matter of law, there was no constitutional guarantee of a "right to die."5 Sources: [1] http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...... [2] [3] [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org......

In rebuttal, Passive euthanasia: Mode of ending life in which a physician is given an option not to prescribe futile treatments for the hopelessly ill patient. Following this, anything that a doctor does- including what he doesn't do which in this case would be not administering any active euthanasia meds, but rather being passive--- that is still breaking both the oath as they are not preserving life to the best of their ability. The Hippocratic oath is sworn in virtually all medical schools, institutions and then business. This counters my opponents points regarding the oath and passive euthanasia.


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

Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia
The fundamental tenet of medical ethics, which is to do no harm, is breached by euthanasia and assisted suicide. These practices challenge the core principle that healthcare professionals should prioritize the well-being of their patients above all else.

I shall debate you on the topic of assisted suicide. I believe not only that Assisted is not moral right but if allowed, doctors would have the power to take human life away when someone very ill could not be the right state of clarity or mind. Just because a pactient is ill now, doesn't mean that all hope of finding what the illness that person has is impossible and so that doesn't mean a doctor should have the power away life just because hope is small or even lost. In all, assisted suicide is wrong not just morally, but it can allow a doctors or nurses to undermine the right to life just because at that moment the ill person in that moment what's to die.

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

If you think about it, the second you are born... no, conceived... you are already starting to die. Although that is a philosophical idea about suciide and not a legal one, let us remember that legalities stem from philosophy along with morality, which has deep seeded roots that often coinside with spirituality. So in this debate, I will attempt to address various if not all aspects of suicide that point to the fact it should officially remain legal. According to Dictionary.com, suicide is the intentional taking of one's own life. The medical definition of suicide is the act of causing one's own death (http://www.medterms.com...). The legal definition of suicide is the intentional taking of one's own life (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). Other definitions I have come across include a death caused by one's own actions, the act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself, or any form of self-killing, where self-killing is understood as acting in such a way as to bring about one's own death. Using the parameters of that terminology, martyrdom, engaging in risky behavior, refusing medical treatment to prolong your life, overdosing on (legal) drugs, and death by coercion should also be considered a form of committing suicide... but they're not, and they're all legal. In the United States it is not uncommon that we make decisions about what is moral, or what should or should not be legal based on precedent. In this case, you can base your reasoning not on precedent, per se, but by the reasoning that there are many legal types of suicide, such as the ones I have acknowledged above. A common "correction" of the various official definitions of suicide is that, "Suicide is chiefly intended to terminate a life – the other acts are aimed at perpetuating, strengthening and defending values" (http://samvak.tripod.com...). However I then pose the question, what value is one upholding when choosing to smoke cigarettes? The law states that on every U.S. cigarette box or in every U.S. cigarette ad, the Surgeon General's warning about smoking and its negative, damaging, sometimes life threatening effects be clearly disaplayed for the consumer to make a conscious decision about their choices and their health/life. Thus it is fair to assume that one accepts the risk of smoking cigarettes long-term, including the possibility that they could develop potentially fatal types of cancer or mouth disease. This type of blatant disregard for one's health (I'm a smoker btw) is different from accepting the possibility or risk that one could also die in a car accident, because riding in a car is far more useful, practical, and sometimes necessary than smoking cigarettes could ever be. Anyway, the point that I am trying to make is that smoking cigarettes, for example, is legal and I argue it's a form of suicide: It's an intentional action that more likely than not speeds up the process of your death and will ultimately take your life. Now let's think outside of the box for a minute. Consider the people who often oppose suicide's legality and think of it as one of the worst crimes one can possibly commit, because it is the taking of a human life. These people are often religious who cite God's word (via the Bible) that murder is the worst possible mortal sin, even if the killing is done unto self. However isn't this the same Bible (or Torah, Koran, etc.) that promotes infinitity and life after death? Eternal LIFE? Thus it would be hypocritical for them to conclude that taking one's life is the end of their existance/soul, even if it means here on Earth. Who cares. How could they punish someone for wanting to transition to their next life or the after-life, especially if they are in pain and suffering, or the victim of a mental illness (this example includes depression)? Additionally, some people are spiritual and not relgious. They may still believe in life after death, and want to do everything in their power to get there. Now, since this country allows for any and every type of worship (so long as it does not infringe upon another's lifestyle), why should we make a practice of one's beliefs illegal if it only "harms" themselves? Should we also be making people who need to eat meat and choose not to during Lent criminals? And what does society have to say about all this? Well I know that patriotism is encouraged in the United States and that people who choose to die for their country are considered heroes. So why can't one choose to die for whatever reason they choose? They say that dying for your country is upholding a value but who determines what is and isn't of value to each and every individual? That's right. The individual. So to assume that suicide isn't valid for any and every reason is very presumptious; only the individual can determine why they would choose to engage in such a behavior. But back to society. Countless polls including the infamous Gallup Poll show that the death penalty is supported in the United States by at least 60-70% of the population (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). Theoretically, the death penalty is used to act as a deterrent to stop individuals from committing heinous crimes (it's just a theory - it doesn't work). What the death penalty really is, essentially, is a harsh punishment to rectify a malicious crime and serve as 'justice' to the victim and/or victim's family who suffered at the hand of the guilty. I think everyone can agree on that one. But with that mentality, going back to the individual being the only one sure of why they would choose such a fate for themself, how are we to know that someone is not committing suicide BECAUSE they are guilty of committing an incredibly reprehensible crime and wish to avoid the legal system/procedure? In this society we do not always frown upon taking the law into one's own hands, so why be hypocritical? Besides, what if someone who WASN'T CAUGHT chose to take their own life as punishment? If we really believe in the death penalty (which numbers and laws show that we do), then shouldn't we be glad that some creep is removing themself from society and poses one less threat to the world? One valid question regarding suicide is of course revolving around the driving force of the world: Money. What to do about life insurance and other inheritances for people who commit suicide. Well, if suicide were legal, there shouldn't be an issue -- whomever's entitled to what should get it regardless of the cause of death. However, if suicide we ILLEGAL, that could stand in the way in terms of particular pay-outs. Take for example the tragic death of actor Heath Ledger. His death is considered a suicide. Accidental, maybe, but a suicide nonetheless. Now if he weren't a rich actor but instead an average, life insurance policy holding father, should his daughter Matilda not be financially taken care of because of the way her father's life was taken (assuming, of course, that her mother wasn't a famous actress)? Regrettably I am fastly approaching my character limit, so in this round of the debate I cannot address two fundamental aspects of the debate regarding legal suicide: the causes and the effects (not to mention the punishment -- how do we punish the deceased as an individual?). If my opponent wishes to address these issues then I will very well discuss them and any other aspects of my argument in future rounds. As of right now I plan to include facts (numbers) about the amount of people who consider committing suicide, who believe that assisted suicide should be legal, and who believe that suicide itself should be legal... because, don't the opinions of the people matter anymore? Forgive my lack of elaboration in this round; I don't have enough room but I welcome the opportunity for my opponent to address them first. Thank you and good luck.

Thank you for the argument Often, the discussion revolves around the right to life; anti-euthanasia proponents argue that euthanasia infringes on a person"s fundamental right to live. What they fail to see is that our "life" as human beings implies death. Without death, we do not have "human life" by its very definition. Like black and white or two sides of a coin, human life cannot occur without death. Therefore for those that argue that every man has the fundamental right to live, they unknowingly also agree that every man has the fundamental right to die. Because we can determine the course of our lives by our own will, we have the right to live our lives and determine our own course. Naturally it follows that the same self-determining capacity we have as human beings also gives us the fundamental right to determine how we die. It is also important to consider that the right to life has no say over the right to die. The right to live and the right to die are two separate, although related rights. They are also mutually exclusive in the sense that the right to live concerns itself only with self-determined life and ends with the right to die. The right to die on the other hand begins where life ends in death. While you live, you exercise your right to life; when your life ends, you exercise your right to die. It is important to consider that we refer to self-determined or natural death and not death resulting from someone directly removing from you your life, thereby restricting your right to live. If such significant weight in this sense is given to our right to live, should we not also give equal weight to our right to die.

1. Reasons for doing so Before we talk about them being justified, let's name a few reasons why people might be tempted to doing so. -Extreme depression -Poverty -Losing someone close -Divorce -Bullying -etc. 2. They want to do it Why would you want to stop someone from doing what they want to do? I bring to mind a scene from the movie "The Incredibles". Mr. Incredible saved a man from falling off a building. But the man actually sued Mr. Incredible because he was trying to commit suicide. If someone wants to commit suicide, if you stop them from doing so, it could lead to either even more depression, or a serious injury that would be far worse than death, like getting your spine snapped, then living the rest of your life in a wheelchair, speaking through a computer. ( I am not speaking bad about people like Stephen Hawking, who are in this predicament. ) 3. The Catholic Church I've seen all of my opponents debates, so I know that most of his debates evolve around Religion. Well, I think I have found the perfect argument in this sense, from the website Psychology Today(. https://www.psychologytoday.com...): "The Roman Catholic Church has long argued that one"s life is the property of God and thus that to commit suicide is to deride God"s prerogatives. The counterargument, by philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) is that, if such is the case, then to save someone"s life is also to deride God"s prerogatives. " This is an excellent viewpoint. Either way, God's prerogatives are in jeopardy, so it they cancel each other out. So which way would the life of someone who wanted to commit suicide go: to Heaven or Hell? Is the Church telling us that God would punish you for not wanting to suffer any pain anymore? This is certainly not the God I've heard before. 4. Freedom to do so If you have a freedom to live, you would probably also have a freedom to die. It's simply logic. If you were suffering extreme pain, physically or mentally, you should have the freedom to stop the suffering. To make it illegal to do so is absurd. People actually go to jail for trying! If you want to end your life, you have a right to do so, as you have a right to live. These are my main arguments. I will probably throw in one or two more in the Rebuttal round. Good luck Con!

The debate topic is "Physician Assisted Death," not "Physician Assisted Suicide." I am entirely in favor of the ladder. The broadness of the debate is just that, broad. You are trying to bring it down to one thing while ignoring the rest of the possibilities under the definition of the actual debate topic. It's blatant and doesn't work. You can die more ways than suicide. Change the debate topic in a future debate if you want to specifically debate suicide, but this is not that debate.

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...

So what is suiside ? suiside is the act or an instance of taking ones own life voluntarily and intentionally. With this being said why shouldnt suiside be legalised since the person who is committing suicide is doing it voluntarily without anyone forcing them to do so

1. Third Party Influence: My opponent agrees that no law can be crafted on such a delicate issue which will rule out corruption in the Ethanasia system. Also, my opponent does not present a way for a system to have transparency built in to allow reviews of the decision's toward euthanasia. It is very important to understand that Third Party Influence has the potential to corrupt the Euthanasia system. No law can be crafted which can ensure this does not occur or to allow prosecution in the future since transparency does not exist. My opponent argues that he believes a case in which a Third Party (Family, freinds, or outsiders) has an agenda and pressures the patient into assisted suicide is "rare". This is true but that is because only 6 places in the ENTIRE world allow euthanasia. Now extending the legality of euthanasia to all of the USA, the third largest country in the world, you can imagine that cases of corrupt behavior by a third party will rise as the number of euthanasia procedures rise. Since my opponent agrees that corrupt behavior does exists he must understand that by extending the power of euthanasia to 350,000,000 people corrupt behavior will increase. My opponent's argument: "Mind you, for most if not all voluntary euthanasia procedures, this patient is under unbearable pain and/or is terminally ill. So it's not like family members (really corrupt ones at that) can try to find any excuse to persuade their relative to pull the plug; the patient would have to meet the requirements medically speaking. This requirement by itself limits the possibility of family members trying to profit from someone's death." As the law is written in Oregon, "Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life." (Wikipedia.com) So my opponents argument that the patient is on a deathbed in excruciating pain pleading for their life to end is only half the story. Patients can ask for euthanasia as soon as they are diagnosed with a terminal illness and they have less than six months to live. My opponent assumes that they will wait until they are in severe pain and almost dead to ask for euthanasia when in fact they can choose euthanasia before disease has the chance to consume their body. Hence the name of the law in Oregon - "Death with dignity act". Meaning a person can avoid putting his or her family through the pain of seeing them in severe pain and drifting in and out of consciousness and ending their life weeks or months before this occurs. So their family is not exposed to such trauma. This being true makes his argument that corruption by a third party is limited since the patient must meet medical standards and be in severe pain false. Since the only requirement the current law in Oregon requires the patient to have a terminal illness that will kill them within 6 months. This leaves a large enough window for Third Party corruption. This being true euthanasia should not be legalised. 2. Corruption in the Euthanasia System Opponents Agrument: "A doctor can't get paid by some shady character and kill the patient; there has to be written consensus on the patient's part." The scenario i presented in round is this: Under the model that doctors must not be paid for euthanasia but offer them for free to rule out corrupt behavior in the euthanasia system would not work. Doctors would have more incentive to authorize and conduct fraudulent euthanasia procedures since they would be paid "under the table" for them. My opponent argument fails for 2 reasons. First, my opponent again insists that "written consent on the patients part" rules out corrupt behavior. As i have clearly explained, patient consent does not rule out corruption. If a patient is pressured by a third into assisted suicide his "written consent" is merely a lie for he or she truly does not want to undergo euthanasia. Second, my opponent's depiction of "some shady character" paying a doctor to "kill the patient" is exaggerated. Under the model of free euthanasia procedures, a Third Party (family or friends of the patient, hardly "shady") can approach the doctor and pay him money to fraudulently authorize and conduct an euthanasia procedure. If the doctor is not getting paid to conduct and authorize legal euthanasia he has more incentive to conduct and authorize a fraudulent euthanasia for money. The argument that offering euthanasia for free will uproot corruption again is false. Not only will doctors be more susceptible to corruption but consumers of euthanasia procedures will increase. So more people will choose euthanasia as a viable option since it is free, there is no barrier to curb the use of euthanasia, instead this will increase the number of procedures performed. As i stated earlier, with the increase of euthanasia procedures, the probability that corrupt behavior will occur also increases. Conclusion: Euthanasia is a very tough issue. It offers families in dire situations to help end the suffering of loved ones. Many can agree that it seems humane and right to allow Euthanasia to speed up the process of death in such a scenario. However as the law in Oregon shows, a person can choose Euthanasia month or weeks before they are reduced to such a state. The dangers that are clearly eminent by corruption can not be purged from any Euthanasia system. Legislatures can not craft a law perfect enough to rule out corruption and greed. Nor, can they craft a law allowing transparency into the decision of the terminally ill for later review into corrupt or fraudulent behavior since the terminally ill has deceased. Allowing 350,000,000 the right to assisted suicide is dangerous since we can not control corrupt behavior. It should noted Patients are allowed to refuse medical treatment even if it speeds up the process of their death. In this situation the patient in in complete control, no second party is conducting procedures that actively kill the patient. Also people should understand that Euthanasia is not a perfect science: "In an earlier 2000 study of 649 patients undergoing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, 14% of patients undergoing euthanasia had complications such as waking from the coma, spasms or vomiting.[2] Thirty-two percent of patients undergoing physician-assisted suicide had complications which were troublesome enough in 18% to require their doctors to switch to active euthanasia. In this study physicians were absent in 28% of cases of euthanasia and 48% of cases of physician-assisted suicide." http://en.wikipedia.org... These stats are from the Netherlands where Euthanasia is legal. The Netherlands only represents %5 of the USA population. For these reasons Euthanasia should not be legalized.

Hey lannan, Thank you for extending this debate opportunity to me. I look forward to an intense clash of minds in which all who observe can enjoy. XI: Intro and Definition I would like to begin this debate by making the clear observation that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) is NOT the same as euthanasia. In my own words PAS is self-administered death while euthanasia is the taking of another's life by the actual doctor, with of without their consent. Basically in euthanasia the doctor pulls the trigger (with or without permission by the patient) while in PAS the doctor simply supplies the gun, very different. These quotes will demonstrate what I am saying: "Physician-Assisted Suicide is where patients with a terminal diagnosis (life-limiting disease) formally request a prescription for a fatal dose of a drug which they can administer to themselves at a time of their choosing......It is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying, to treat an unbearable situation, and is legal in two states in the U.S.A. (Oregon [Death with Dignity Act 1994] and Washington [2009]), and in Europe in The Netherlands." "Euthanasia is when a physician or other healthcare provider does something, such as administering a known lethal dose of a drug, to deliberately kill a patient, with or without the patient’s consent. It is not legal anywhere in the U.S.A." ~http://comfortcarechoices.com... "Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy killing")."~Wiki: Assisted Suicide XII: PAS is Safe and is fairly common in other countries Many people have misconceptions about physician assisted suicide. PAS is a very safe practice, Countries which allow PAS include: Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Canada. In the U.S. these states allow PAS currently: Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Montana and Vermont. ~Wiki: Assisted Suicide. Another fear many people have about PAS is that it is unsafe and leads to family members forcing others to engage in PAS for personal gain such as inheritance. This would be a major concern if it were not for the reasonability of legislation and the opposition to PAS. What I mean by that is, the fact opposition brings attention to the possibility of abuse, special measures are taken to implement especially safe laws. Here is a sample of the legal process to apply and receive PAS: "Several safeguards in Death with Dignity laws ensure all patients are protected, and if they wish to use the law, they're in full control of the process. These safeguards and the request process ensure there's no chance patients are coerced to hasten their deaths. The terminally ill patient: verbally requests the medication from the physician twice; each request is separated by 15 days. make a written request to the attending physician; the request is witnessed by two individuals who are not primary care givers or family members. can rescind the verbal and written requests at any time. must be able to self-administer and ingest the prescribed medication. The law further requires... The attending physician must be licensed in the same state as the patient. The physician's diagnosis must include a terminal illness, with six months or less to live. The diagnosis must be certified by a consulting physician, who must also certify that the patient is mentally competent to make and communicate health care decisions. If either physician determines that the patient's judgment is impaired, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination. The attending physician must inform the patient of alternatives, including palliative care, hospice and pain management options. The attending physician must request that the patient notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. Use of the law cannot affect the status of a patient's health or life insurance policies. The states' departments of health enforce compliance with the law. Compliance requires physicians to report all prescriptions to the state. Physicians and patients who comply with the law are protected from criminal prosecution. Physicians and health care systems are not obligated to participate in the Death with Dignity laws." ~ See more at: http://www.deathwithdignity.org... XIII: The Moral Reason Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal Beyond any facts I have presented I must state the moral reason for which PAS should be allowed, ultimately it comes down to the fact that people who suffer never-endingly, deserve the right to control their own life and as has been said, "Die with Dignity". People who oppose PAS often make arguments which are quite contradictory to the way in which we are supposed to treat others in the U.S.. One I often hear is, 'we cannot play god', to which I must respond, "Which one?". Not everyone believes in the same god and some lack such a concept. by rejecting the idea of PAS using this logic, are you not imposing your religious beliefs on others and is this not against the way in which we are supposed to operate in the U.S. concerning religion? I find it wrong that people who have never experienced excruciating and continual pain, force their beliefs on those who on a daily basis do. It is very egotistical to believe that you know more than an 'expert' in pain, in essence. So these people who have never experienced such pain prevent laws from being passed which would free people from the prison of their body. A person who is burning in a fire will experience pain so vast that it is incomprehensible, and it should be absolutely morally irreprehensible to allow the continuation of such pain; what deprives one of their right to pursue happiness than something like that? Please let me be clear, if such pain occurs for just a moment, then of course they should not be allowed to end their life. And if this pain is psychological and caused by depression, then of course they should not be permitted to end their life in this name, however it is when this suffering is permanent that we must disallow its continuation. Doing otherwise should be considered a crime, not vice vera. Thanks you for reading and considering, I end my opening statement.


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

Euthanasia: A Humane Option for Ending Suffering
Euthanasia, a procedure aimed at ending a person's life to relieve them of unbearable pain, raises significant ethical questions. Should society permit euthanasia, or should it remain prohibited? The debate over whether euthanasia should be legalized or not is a complex one, as it involves balancing individual autonomy and the right to die with societal concerns about potential abuses and the sanctity of life. Advocates argue that euthanasia provides a humane way to alleviate suffering for those with terminal illnesses, while opponents contend that it could lead to slippery slopes and abuses. What are your thoughts on this controversial issue?

I see you're going on the offensive here, alright.And you haven't posted any arguments of yourself here, just pointing that out.#1You're taking an example that rarely occurs here. Of course there are exceptions, but 9 out of 10 people die in those cases. And we can't make judgements based on exceptions. You know there is no hope left when the patient shows no signs of recovery and is too severely wounded for him to possibly recover. Your source clearly states he was the ONLY person in britain who had survived that case.I'm not contradicting myself, I'm just stating a what if. And again you're taking an extreme example. Sure there is a time when there's a conspiracy between family members and doctors to make sure the patient dies to gain his fortune. But if we don't stop being scared of those extreme situations and look at the big picture (to help many suffering people), we will never achieve something.#2Using extreme examples again. What you say may be true, which is why the law in my country (Netherlands) says that euthanasia can only be performed on request of the patient. And that doctor was an *sshole, don't let those people cloud your judgement.#3God gave us free will so also the free choice of inventing abortion and euthanasia.

Many people die a slow death because the law is against Euthanasia, but why? Why is it so bad if thousands of people beg for it and even go to the courts for the right to die? It is a personal choice and it needs to be made legal.

Even at the age of 18 kids do not have the life experience to know that things get better. If a person no longer wants to live they should seek therapy, counselling, and most likely be put on medication. Depression is a disorder, a chemical imbalance in the brain. Anti-depressants work to gradually increase serotonin and dopamine levels which pulls you out of depression. The assisted suicide of healthy people is not "morally hard to accept" how could it be when it goes against morals? By allowing assisted suicide to be legal the entire mental health work force would change. People already seeking therapy could then be told things like "We're in our fourth session now and I haven't noticed any changes I'm allowing you to kill yourself, thanks for trying." If people have a way out, why would they try to make themselves better?

1. Right to life- People have a fundamental right to life. Just like we have a right to free speech and many other things. We enjoy a certain amount of autonomy. Just like the right to free speech doesn't mean you can't be silent. The right to life doesn't mean you can't choose to die. Having a right to life implies that you own your life. It's your life to do as you please with and if you decide that you'd pefer to go on your own terms rather than being taken by a terminal illness, you should have every right to do so. 2. Suicide- Suicide is a despeate act taken out in secrecy and leaving the people close to the one committing suicide feeling guilty and confused as to why it happened among several other conflicting emotions. By allow assisted suicide we can bring this process out into the open. Patients can taalk to their relatives about all these things, while pursuing a legal form of suicide. The process of suicide can be a lot less painful and a lot more open to friends and family of the person. 3. Terminally ill- A lot of terminally Ill have a very rough road ahead of them. They might lose their health their mind and have an extremely painful death. Allowing those individuals to commit suicide will only be cutting out a very short part of their lives which will be extremely painful and even dehumanizing.

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...

Rebuttal Your argument is very weak. You said, “Not practicing euthanasia at the request of the dying person is violating a person’s rights, creating an economic burden, interfering with a doctor"s job…” This is a form of a fallacy that begs the question. No evidence is offered to support your claim. You failed to explain how not practicing euthanasia violates an individual right, creates economic burden, and interferes with doctor’s job. All you did was to make evidence your own claim, but in reality no evidence was given or any explanation for those claims. Points It devalues human life. This is one reason why euthanasia is not acceptable. Proponents of euthanasia, however, do not believe it degrades life and for them patients who suffer from incurable disease should be afforded with a choice whether or not to end their sufferings. But the problem with that, it is not always the case, not all reasons for accepting euthanasia center on the suffering of a patient, other reasons are decreasing medical costs and other monetary reasons. For example, a report issued by EPAC, the Economic Planning and Advisory Council, a government think-tank. The report discussed the rising costs of medical care for the elderly, and rising hospital costs in general, and actually suggested that euthanasia might be an option in dealing with this crisis. There was no mention of suffering or the humane treatment of dying human beings. Instead, cold utilitarian considerations of cost-cutting were given as the reason to consider euthanasia.1 That becomes problem when reasons, other than the suffering of the patient, are given in support with euthanasia. It degrades the life of person by saying that his life is less important than the money that might be saved if euthanasia is accepted. Life is very sacred, accepting euthanasia destroys that sanctity. It may be your life but according to God, you don’t have the right to take it. Another reason against euthanasia, It neither preserve human life nor protect the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion In Washington v. Glucksberg ,the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that a right to assistance in committing suicide was not protected by the Due Process Clause.2 Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion for the court. His decision reversed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a ban on physician assisted suicide embodied in Washington's Natural Death Act of 1979 was a violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court held that because assisted-suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest, it was not protected under the 14th Amendment. As previously decided in Moore v. East Cleveland, liberty interests not "deeply rooted in the nation's history" do not qualify as being a protected liberty interest. Assisted-suicide, the court found, had been frowned upon for centuries and a majority of the States had similar bans on assisted suicide. Rehnquist found the English common-law penalties associated with assisted suicide particularly significant. For example, at early common law, the state confiscated the property of a person who committed suicide. Like Blackmun in Roe v. Wade, Rehnquist used English common law to establish American tradition as a yardstick for determining what rights were "deeply rooted in the nation's history." Rehnquist cited Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the opinion.3 The Court felt that the ban was rational in that it furthered such compelling state interests as the preservation of human life and the protection of the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. It also prevented those moved to end their lives because of financial or psychological complications. The Court also felt that if the Court declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutionally protected right, they would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary euthanasia.4 Similarly, in Vacco v. Quill, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great pain, was a legitimate state interest that was well within the authority of the state to regulate. In brief, this decision established that, as a matter of law, there was no constitutional guarantee of a "right to die."5 Sources: [1] http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...... [2] [3] [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org......

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

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

Fundamentally, euthanasia deals with human beings, so my argument will be based on the inherent dignity of the human person. Deliberately killing an innocent person is morally wrong, even when done with the best of intentions. Indeed, people often choose euthanasia for themselves or their loved ones with the best of intentions, but the intention does not change the act. Many people argue that euthanasia is the last recourse when the family does not have enough money to pay for medical treatment. However, this view reduces a person to his medical condition. It does not respect his dignity or the value he puts into the world simply by being alive. The cost of medical treatment is certainly a problem in some cases, but killing the person should not be the solution. We as a community need to find a solution that respects human dignity and does not involve the deliberate death of an innocent person. Another strong argument in favor of euthanasia says that it ends human suffering, giving the person a dignified death. While this is a compelling argument- we all want people to have a dignified and peaceful end- it also neglects the view of the whole person. If we see ourselves or others only as an illness or suffering we fail to see all the goodness, beauty and dignity of every person. Suffering does not diminish our dignity. Every human being is more than just his physical health. We cannot reduce him to his physical condition to make a judgement about his worth. If we make the decision to end our own lives to end the pain we forget that there is more to life than pain. By our example we can build virtue and strong character, but we can also witness to others. I personally have a friend whose father suffered from a very painful cancer with a taxing treatment. His strength in the face of suffering and the sacrifices he made for his family did far more for his family and others than ending his life ever could have. He truly died with dignity because he made the most of his time and did not let his suffering define or limit him. There is value in all our suffering, just as there is value in every life. This does not give us the right to end our lives. Now, if a person wants to die, what right do we have to deny him? for one thing, even if he asks for it, euthanasia is still the deliberate killing of an innocent person, which is always wrong. In addition, the United States Constitution protects the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It does not protect the right to death. Some people could argue that the right to death could be an extension of the right to life (we have autonomy and should be able to choose our end) or that it falls under the pursuit of happiness. If the act does not harm society how can we claim the right to prohibit the person's free choice? To begin with, I would like to assert that the act does harm society. A good case study is the Netherlands. Since legalizing physician assisted suicide, their numbers of euthanasia cases each year have risen dramatically, which would be expected. But it doesn't stop there. An average of three elderly people per day are subjected to involuntary or nonvoluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands (http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...). This means that their doctors killed them without their consent or knowledge. While this might seem like an extreme example, it is the effect of the devaluation of human life that accompanies euthanasia. Another negative effect on society is the loss of any life. Society as a whole suffers when any of its members die, but especially when they die because of an attitude of indifference or disrespect toward life, which sometimes accompanies the choice for euthanasia. The choice to end one"s life also affects family. It is difficult to watch a loved one suffer, but knowing that you helped end their life might be more difficult still. The best way to love someone is to support him through his suffering. People may want to end their suffering for the sake of their families, either to end their financial or emotional burdens. I understand that there is a tremendous pressure to make these decisions and that the vast majority of them are made out of love. Here we have to examine what love is and how we can live it out with a suffering family member. Is death truly what is best for the person? I would argue that we can love them best by giving them a good life rather than a good death. When we love someone we want what is best for them, so the question is whether committing suicide (or physician assisted suicide) is what is best for the person. Taking an innocent life, including your own, is a grave evil. From this point we can conclude that killing yourself, which is an evil act, is not what is best for the person. In addition, most people who attempt suicide (as opposed to euthanasia) are seeking an end to their problems more than actual death. Often ending their lives seems like the only or the best way to end their problems. Studies done by the American Journal of Psychiatry have shown that only 3% of patients who attempted suicide and received treatment committed suicide within the 5 years following treatment. This is strong evidence that death is not the best solution to life's problems, nor the solution that most people really want. If we make euthanasia legal we are providing an easy means to end any pain people are experiencing without encouraging them to seek a solution to their problems. Since the beginning of recorded history, human beings have feared death. People have had traditions for millennia that are meant to ease the passing from this life. Ancient Greeks placed coins on the eyes of the dead to allow them passage into the underworld. Egyptian royalty were mummified and buried with wealth to ensure a safe afterlife where they would be happy and well provided for. The Japanese emperor Qin Shi Huang Di was buried with thousands of terracotta warriors to accompany him in the afterlife. We have always had traditions to make the idea of death easier to bear. We have rituals and beliefs, and all this is because we have a natural fear of death. This fear speaks to an innate human understanding that life is good and death is unnatural. This is not to say that I believe we should fear death. My point is that we should not urge people from life. Our innate response to death as something undesirable should tell us that life is beautiful and should be valued. I don"t support prolonging people"s suffering. We do not have to provide extraordinary care, but we cannot deliberately kill anyone. It is moral to let a person die, but not to kill him. Medicine is meant to heal, not to kill. It is actually dehumanizing to end our lives early. It gives people the "choice" to decide when they die rather than encouraging them to make good choices with how they live. Autonomy means living by our choices, not dying by them. Literally defined, it means "independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions". The irony here is that if we freely choose to die we are no longer free and no longer making choices. I am not insensitive to the fact that many people know others who have committed suicide or physician-assisted-suicide. I certainly don't mean to disrespect or insult anybody. I know that euthanasia is a personal and sensitive topic, but it is one that must be addressed. I am opposed to euthanasia out of respect for every human person.

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.