The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Assisted Suicide/ Euthenasia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 731 times Debate No: 66391
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Opponent, Please Explain your views on it. I am very interested to see what they are.


Assisted Suicide. Why? Don't Legalize Euthanasia!

Euthanasia, a term that can be described as "mercy killing" or the ending of a person's life because they no longer have the desire to live. Euthanasia has been a worldwide controversial debate for many years. Two types of euthanasia may be discussed, active and passive. Active described as "killing" and passive as "allowing to die." Is it the physical pain or is it depression that leads a person to desire death? If foreign countries allow, and cannot control their own "mercy killings," why wouldn't the United States follow in their footsteps? These questions and life are too often taken for granted. Euthanasia goes against our morals and duties as human beings. It should not be legalized in the United States, and where it is legal it should be stopped.

Active euthanasia is the more controversial of the two types. Supporters of active euthanasia base their defense on "One, it is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person for his or her life to be mercifully ended in order to avoid future suffering and/or indignity. Two, the individual choice should be respected to the extent that it does not result in harm to others; since no one is harmed by terminally ill patients' undergoing active euthanasia...". The common rebuttal to this is, "One, Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong. Two, killing is incompatible with the professional responsibilities of the physician. And three, any systematic acceptance of active euthanasia would lead to detrimental social consequences (e.g., via a lessening of respect for human life)". Basically, a physician has a clear moral obligation to his/her patients, to cure and comfort. This "obligation" does not entail killing the patient.

Lets talk about Bob, what about Bob. Bob contracted polio at the age of five; initially, he was paralyzed from the neck down. Doctors told his parents that he would never walk again. Due to impairment of respiration and other problems, they believed that he would not live to the age of twenty-one. He also might have been a perfect candidate for physician-assisted suicide. Were the doctors thinking "better dead than disabled?" That it would be better to kill your son now in return for 20 years of hospital bills just to have him die? It seems as if there was an attempt to put a price on a person's life.

Assisted suicide is most commonly contemplated by the terminally ill. Terminally ill patients do suffer greatly, but is it the physical pain they suffer from? Many physicians seem to believe it is depression that leads these patients to desire suicide. "USA Today has reported that among older people suffering from terminal illnesses who attempt suicide, the number suffering from depression reaches almost 90%" (Why We Shouldn't Legalize Assisting Suicide). Dr. Jack Kevorkian believes that any person with a disabling disease who doesn't suffer from depression is "abnormal." What is hard for these people to understand who are pro-euthanasia is that depression is treatable and even curable. A person would suffer a lot less physically if they suffered less mentally. Some medical doctors also feel this way.

I think depression factors in greatly with the terminally ill patients, some more than others do. Let's take AIDS patients for example. In time, they suffer greatly physically and mentally. Does this constitute their ability to have suicide granted upon request? No, if it were so, millions of people would die, and look how frivolous life would seem if it were legal to have your own life taken.

Physician-assisted suicide in foreign countries has proved to be catastrophic. "In 1990, physicians in the Netherlands were involved in 11,800 deaths, or 9% of all deaths in the country. Of these, half were labeled "active involuntary euthanasia", that is, the patient was killed without his consent" (Ohio Right to Life). For example, "by the late 80's it had become routine to "euthanize" babies born with handicaps, like Downs syndrome and spina bifida. Three nurses in Amsterdam killed several comatose patients without any consent. They were convicted, not of homicide, but of failing to consult a physician" (Ohio Right to Life). All of this has occurred in a country where euthanasia is legal. How would it be possible for the United States to keep it under control? "If we can't even control the actions of one doctor (Jack Kevorkian) when physician-assisted suicide is illegal, how can we expect to regulate the actions of thousands of doctors where physician-assisted suicide is legal" (Christian Medical & Dental Society). The United States should learn from the mistakes of other nations and think twice about making physician assisted suicide legal.

Life is taken for granted all too often, people always look for the shortcuts, the easy way out. Death should never be a persons last resort, there will always be an alternative. Humans cannot be compared to animals either. We can't be taken to a veterinarian to be put to sleep. It is immoral and dehumanizing.

People rarely take into consideration how precious life is. Feelings of depression and guilt often overwhelm the sick. They only think of one way out. If euthanasia were to be legalized, the already declining morals and ethics of this country would be further compromised. Making it legal to kill is immoral, and goes against our duties in society.
Debate Round No. 1


You made some very good points.

Yes, life is taken for granted, but people have the right to choose whether that want to keep it or not. However, my main problem is the fact that you said that 90% of terminally ill patients suffer from depression. Which I belive. But do you want to know what all of these people have depression? It's because of all of the pain and suffering they have had to go through, so we should let them end their pain and suffering. And about the neatherlands thing, that people and babies were killed without they're consent. That's not "Forced Euthenasia". That's murder. Euthenasia is death with your own consent, and those doctors who carried out those murders should be punished. Humans try to find the easy way out the sort cut. It's nature. Sure maybe it's selfish and bad, (but also efficient sometimes) but hey, it sure is hell not our fault. So if these humans want a shortcut out of pain and suffering, we have no right to tell them not to.


What if we created a compromise. No assisted suicide for people under 50. That way people that are young that have depression don't make a bad decision to kill themselves. Plus it would be good for the people that are older and wouldn't live much more anyways. Another idea is if people can have assisted suicide only if their immediate family signs off on it.
Tell me some other compromises.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm very glad you want to compromise. but I think it should be no assisted suicide under 30, and I disagree on immediate family signing off. Unfortunately sometimes there are sadistic immediate family members that hate the person and will might sign off because they want them to suffer. I say that a spouse of which the client has been married ten or more years to must agree. Oh, and the person who wished to end their life must be suffering from an incredibly painful disease.

I hope we can agree.


I like that. There is no need for a round 4 really.
Debate Round No. 3


Liberals forfeited this round.


Charles13 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Con conceded the debate prior to the final round and due to Pro's compromising positions. Due to this, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.