Assisted Suicide, should it be legal?
Debate Rounds (4)
I believe that doctor assisted suicide should be removed.
I wish you the best of luck, trust me I have a lot more arguments but I have to save them for the following rounds and they may alter/change. It depends on your comeback to this issue.
Thank you Con for such an interesting debate. Lets dive into it!
*Note, I'm going to assume that this round is for making a case, and that the next round will be rebuttal, and then final round will be conclusion, so I will not respond to any of Con's arguments until round 3!*
Alright, I'll be arguing that assisted suicide should be legal, and that it should be considered a fair and equal choice to anyone who feels or deems it necessary. Mainly, my argument will be pointed to people with medical conditions, and to people who feel it is a complete last resort. Lets get to it!
Firstly, lets take a look at the cost of medical treatment for someone who was estimated to be dead within a year due to, lets go with, lung cancer. For the initial treatment, you'll be looking at an upward worth of 60k. From that initial cost and so forth, it will be about 8k a year. So far, that's $68,000 after the first year of being diagnosed with lung cancer. Finally, after 2 years, and $16,000 more dollars, your doctors say that, under medical care, you have 1 more year to live. This final year will come out be nearly $100,000. So, over the course of 3 years, this will come out to be $184,000 out of you, or your family/loved one's pockets.
For many people, including a man named Mathew Donnely, the cost and debt that these three years would put his family in just wasn't right. Assisted suicide was able to help him feel a sense of relief in a final moments, knowing his family would be able to live debt free, not having to pay for the treatment of a terminally ill person. This last choice was his own, and he truly felt relieved to be able to make a choice that would able to make a choice that would end any type of economical, physical, or mental suffering he was going through. 
Lastly, I'll be arguing that the ability to choose to kill yourself is your own choice, and is completely your freedom to do so. The fact of the whole matter is is that we all die one day, no matter who you are. Life is a gift, but for others, this gift is soured by the suffering of depression or some sort of medical condition that has left you terminally ill, and counting your last days. People get a foreign but completely understandable sense of comfort from a choice that they ALONE have the choice to make. Making a choice that people have the right to make, and already do make, illegal just isn't the right thing to do.
Thanks, that's my case! Good luck to Con!
You said a lot of things that I must agree with. There is no reason to disagree with many of the things you said. However I am still going to support the case that doctor assisted suicide is wrong. To be more descriptive pain and suffering is a terrible thing but you could benefit to the world. You benefit to the world regardless of the scenario. Every second someone is on this earth is a second of being able to help and assist it. The place is messed up, seriously though. I want to help until my heart decides to give up, I don't want to forcefully stop it. We all have a purpose, making someone end your life is selfish on your part. And it makes it so you didn't live in your fullest potential. Anything could happen, why cut it short?
However you did bring a lot of fair points, this may be a short post. Many of my arguments were cancelled out because of the last comment. I respect you for your good debating. Now, show me what else you have in store.
Grammar may also be a little bit off, I kind of rushed this.
Thank you again Con for such an, interesting debate!
Con main argument seems to be the stress that would be inflicted on the family of the patient, and on the doctor that would be delivering the dosage of secobarbital (most common drug used in assisted suicide). Con also states that if one were to kill themselves, they would be "selfishly leaving everyone and impacting stress to everyone around you, family and doctors." That sentence there seems to be the perfect summary of Con's arguments. I'll start out with the stress that would be inflicted on the doctor, and family.
Now, Con says that the stress that assisted suicide would put on the family wouldn't be fair, and outright "selfish." However, if you take a look at most of the cases of assisted suicide that have occurred, a majority of them happen with people who are terminally ill, and don't want to go through the stress/sadness of watching themselves die, while also seeing their families grieve over them. Yes, killing yourself would be a very stressful thing for your loved ones, but it's fair to say it would be even more stressful watching your loved one die over the course of a year, while also having to pay expensive medical bills. This is the mind set most people have when they're considering assisted suicide: end the suffering of me, and my family, and move on, completely opposite of "selfish".
The case with the doctor is a very good argument. I commend Con for bringing that up, for I've never seen it before in a debate like this. However, being that this is a debate, I will try and dismantle it as best I can.
Being a doctor, in on itself, is a very stressful job. You're working in a place where the possibility of your patient dying is high. Doctors sign up knowing that they are going to be plunged into a stressful work zone, in a place where someone's life depends on their ability to treat them, so the idea of someone asking for that doctor to kill them seems backwards, I know. But ask yourself, how is this any different from asking someone to pull the plug if you were on life support.? Sure, being on life support might be closer to the end than compared to being told you have 1 year to live, but doctors are still authorized to be able to pull plugs, even without the consent of the patient and in fact could be the consent of a loved one. Doctors even recommend it on occasion, say if the person is suffering. Yes, doctors sign an agreement that states that they must try, at the best of their ability, to save someone. However, there comes a point, and I do realize that anything could happen, where there's nothing left for the doctor to do, except extend the life period of someone who will be dead in a year or two, which costs a ton of money. It
Doctors need the consent of the patient to basically do anything (surgery, medications, etc.), so all and all, it comes down to the PATIENT's decisions, not the doctor's. The doctor can try his absolute best to try and convince the patient to take the treatment, and extend their life, partially because they don't want to see their patient die, and possibly partially due to the money that would come out of the year of treatment that patient would have to undergo. It sounds horrible, but looking at it at a business point of view makes sense.
That is my rebuttal! Thanks again to Con for such a thrilling debate, and bringing up some good points. I'll assume that my opponent won't bring up anymore points in the final round, and that the final round will be for closing statements.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CookieMonster9 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: I have to go with Pro. It was cool what Con did in Round 3 until Con said quote "You did a great job and you probably won." You shouldn't have said that. It made it seem like you are just begging the voters to vote Pro. I know it's too late now but for future debates even if it seems like one person may win you never want to admit it. Pro got sources because Pro had 4 sources and Con had 0. This was a good debate but if I were Pro I would have brought up how the title of this debate is quote "Assisted Suicide, should it be legal?" and Con's first round was quote "Doctor Assisted suicide, should it be legal? I believe that doctor assisted suicide should be removed." Con changed it from assisted suicide to doctor assisted suicide. I would have brought that up. Well actually the fact that it changed now that I think of it didn't really hurt Pro but if he or she wanted to they could have brought it up if it were to help.
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.