Active Euthanasia is wrong.
Debate Rounds (5)
2) Opening Statement
5) Closing statements
Thank you very much and lets begin.
Active Euthanasia- The practice of injecting a patient with a lethal dose of medication with the primary intention of ending the patient"s life, at the patient"s request. (Segen's Medical Dictionary).
Wrong- I will await your definition of wrong.
1. Human life, in all of its stages, is a precious thing, but euthanasia devalues human life to an obsolete item. Natural death is a part of the natural human life. Religious or not, everyone can agree that this human spirit can create and do amazing things. Upon death, a human being is separated from the human body. Just like the natural process of human life is placed into existence, natural death will reverse that process. Unnatural death becomes the ending to something much less significant. Euthanasia is like throwing away an old car or computer. Killing human beings because of their old age or other physical problems is morally wrong.
2. Allowing Euthanasia to become a part of our culture will lead to limitless justification for the right euthanasia. By guaranteeing patients this right to suicide, general competent adults are also given the chance to demand these rights. With the legalization of euthanasia, government can no longer keep suicide illegal. The justifications for the use of euthanasia will eventually become so expansive and the state will not have the power to deny adults justification for euthanasia.
We can see this happening currently in the Netherlands, where it began as an quick end to a terminal illness in which the victim is in incredible amount of pain. Now legislation is being passed that allows any elderly person to use euthanasia because they simply feel like their life is complete.
3. This out right defies the Hippocratic Oath. "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect", this is the Oath the doctors are supposed to live by. In the oath, this idea, that doctors are not meant to harm, is the most basic ruling. Doctors should be expected to heal and only heal, never to kill.
4. The option of Euthanasia might eventually put some people into horrible situations in which they might be pressured into suicide. An elderly woman that is using up much of her family's income in order to stay alive might be pressured to end her life early.
5. Euthanasia will become another way society cuts out suffering. While suffering should never be forced upon another, there are times when we must not relieve the suffering of others as well. Suffering builds up a person's character in a way our society has always created great people. It could make a man forgiving, or faithful once again. Suffering is an essential part of our society.
Now I will respond to your points in order of appearance, and then make opening arguments of my own:
1.If anything Euthanasia places a value on life. Lets do some math. By placing a cap on the number of days lived, you inherently increase the value of each day lived because they are numbered. However, with a natural death, days lived is an unknown, and could perhaps be infinity. Moreover, as the days approach the euthanasia date, each day becomes more valuable until the final seconds are infinitely valuable; However, if you call of the euthanasia at the last second, then the last second becomes no more valuable than the seconds before and after it. You stuff two points into the first contention: 1) Human life is devalued by euthanasia, and 2) Euthanasia because of age or medical problems is morally wrong. I have combated the first sub-point. I now move to the second. A day lived in bliss is more valuable than a day lived in agony. By your logic, we should keep everyone on respirators until their cells reach their Hayflick limit and cease to divide, and they literally turn to dust. How can you claim that it is more moral to prolong life unnaturally or to allow pain? Under my definition of Active Euthanasia, the person in question must consent to the procedure.
2. There is a difference between suicide and euthanasia. Euthanasia is a medical procedure and is done in private, whereas suicide can be disruptive to daily life. Moreover, euthanasia has a 100% mortality rate, and suicide does not always work. Therefore, suicide is not the same as euthanasia. I agree with the Netherlands and do not see their legislation as morally wrong.
3. The Hippocratic Oath is nice and all, but it is old. So I will address this from two perspectives. First I will assume you are correct and that the Hippocratic Oath ought to be followed by doctors, and the I will disagree with your use of the Hippocratic Oath. The combination of these perspectives will shut down this contention. 1. Even if doctors cannot administer lethal medicines to people, euthanasia can be legislated. Governments can make special euthanasists/ anesthesiologist. These professionals would not be bound by the Hippocratic Oath and would therefore be able to perform the service requested: Euthanasia. 2. The Hippocratic Oath was inspired by Hippocrates, who died c.370 BCE. It would be easy to assume that this oath could be outdated. Moreover, nothing about the Hippocratic Oath makes it moral. You only think it is moral because it is popular in medicine.
4.That is her choice, and it is not my right to infringe on that. I will combat this in my 1st contention.
5. This is an interesting point. For the elderly, the suffering never stops until death, so I see no problem giving them morphine and letting them live their last days in Wonderland. Suffering is non-essential there. I agree that suffering can improve character; however, the level of suffering required to make a person want to end their life is very great. Losing a football game doesn't make someone kill themselves. This point is flawed because if people were so pained by their suffering, then we would see a bunch of suicides, yet we do not.
Now on to my contention:
I will rely on two quotes. The first is from John Locke, "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself. " Essentially, all men are born in to circumstances, yet all are bound by the fact that their life is theirs. If someone denies them their right to have or lose their life as they choose, then they have truly lost all natural rights. For anyone can take from me my titles, material possessions, loves, relationships, and joys, yet at the end of the day I will have my corporeal self and I will have my mind. If I am denied power over these things then I cease to be part of humanity and just become the shell of what was a Homo sapiens sapiens.
My second quote relates to the first. It is from Walt Whitman, "I cock my hat as I please, indoors or out." A man ought to be able to cock his hat any way he likes, and to deny him such a right infringes on his very being. If you infringe on his most basal possession -- life -- then you have infringed upon all that he is. You have destroyed the foundation of his humanity.
mannyboy forfeited this round.
My opponent's forfeit implies that he concedes to my above contentions. If this is because my opponent did not have time, then I encourage him to challenge me in this debate again . It started off on a very good trajectory.
mannyboy forfeited this round.
My opponent has again forfeited. This is twice now. I urge a Pro vote.
mannyboy forfeited this round.
Ardenwa forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.