Debate Rounds (4)
Resolved: Assisted Suicide should be legalized
Definition: Assisted Suicide- the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose.
legalized- be allowed
1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate
2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. First round is acceptance/and or questions regarding resolution (No arguments presented)
6. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions
Moving on, I will like to provide a real life story on one person using assisted suicide, that will allow me to reason with the viewers.
 On November 1, 2014, 29-year-old Brittany Maynard ended her life through assisted suicide, lighting the controversy surrounding Death with Dignity, which allow physicians to prescribe life-ending drugs to terminally ill patients. Diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme, a type of brain cancer in January, Ms. Maynard was given 6 months to live. Afraid that she would suffer unremitting pain and cognitive and motor loss, she choose to have assisted suicide, claiming she wants "death with dignity." She stated that it has given me a sense of peace during a tumultuous time that otherwise would be dominated by fear, uncertainty, and pain. From this, I would like to elaborate into my arguments, using this story as evidence proving my points.
Assisted Suicide promises a painless death. Now just a clarification, I am not here to talk about Euthanasia. Euthanasia generally means that the physician would act directly, for instance by giving a lethal injection, to end the patients life from the patients request. Assisted Suicide is provided pills *from* the physician, but taken *by* the patient. From the story provided, the fact that it gives painless death gave the patience comfort because they knew that it would rather be painless. Note that in my definition, I specifically pointed out patients suffering from incurable diseases. Ladies and Gentleman, the thought about having one rather gives me chills up my spine. It is horrifying, knowing that a disease with no cure will take your life. The effects are horrendous, with the gradual inability to function like a normal person from the disease. The patients never chose to get this disease, but when assisted suicide is an option they choose this because they know that this death would rather be painless.
Imagine that you were diagnosed with brain cancer, something that can't be cured no matter how much the doctors try. What if there wasn't assisted suicide? The only option would rather narrow down to dying from the disease. It is in fact scary to think about your death yet knowing it will approach in deadly ways from that disease. I cannot stress enough that Assisted Suicide actually comforts the patients. As wrong as it sounds, let me reason with you why. These patients are already shocked by their diagnosis, yet even more frightened by the outcomes of their death. It comforts them because they know that they have these pills beside them, and when the stages start to show, you take one. Simple and quick. But lets again, look at a world without assisted suicide. Shock targets the centre of your brain. It makes you think illogically and from that, you could go insane. It makes you feel limited because you have no option but to go with it. There are possibilities that they would end their life by themselves and without physician assistance people may commit suicide in messy, horrifying, or traumatic ways. With assisted suicide, there is no need for any sort of worry for their future nor the endless pain from suffering.
"It's my life, it's my choice." I look at that strongly for this one. When we are making assisted suicide illegal, we are taking away the rights these patients have for their own life. It is basically that the government/law is now taking over that patients life from committing suicide, or rather assisted suicide as the terms in this debate. We are allowing the patients to now decide what they will do with their life. The physicians and doctors told them what *will* happen, the patients can now *choose*. It is wrong that we are taking away ones permission to terminate there life because they decided to. The patients die knowing that it was their choice. They were not murdered. They decided from their own choice. The patients have rights. We live in a country where everyone has their rights to decide for themselves. Why take that choice away from them? Out of all the things the patients can choose, we are taking X rights away and we should never do that to a patient who can decide what to do for her/himself.
Overall, even if assisted suicide is morally wrong that does not mean we should just take away another option for the patients. These patients who are diagnosed with incurable diseases have only one option: death but now they can choose how to. Even if miracles happen, what are the chances that it happens to every diagnosed patient? Very slim. Miracles don't happen often, we shouldn't rely on a source that is unlikely. Assisted suicide is reliable and a great possible choice of choosing death.
It's either dying from pain and suffering, or dying painlessly.
legally assisted suicide can encourage people without a deadly disease to take their lives away and the twins meet the legal requirement of assisted suicide
TAKING THE RIGHT DECISION
also in Belgium children has the right to take their lives with assisted suicide but children has not the mental capability and the experience to make such decision
secondly statistics say that
Also a sudden change in brain function caused by illness is called delirium a person's ability to think and make the right decision may change within hours derilium and problem with thinking are commune i the last weeks of life when this happen people may not be capable to make complex decision in as tidy more than hospital patients who appeared normal
were given a decision-making test. Of those patients, 50 could not make standard medical decisions. Of the 50 patients, the medical team identified only 12 as unable to make decisions.
Other studies (2) show that memory and judgment problems can last long after the causes of delirium have been treated and the delirium reversed. Often, health care providers don"t detect these difficulties, especially if patients have good social skills and are not asked questions to test their judgment.
Depression can affect decisions. Up to 25% of people with serious chronic illness are depressed, but often it is not identified and not treated because of the assumption that it is normal to feel depressed with a life-limiting illness. Many people feel down when they get bad news or their health gets worse. But feeling depressed enough to want to die is not normal even with a life-limiting illness. Neither is feeling hopeless, helpless or worthless. These are signs of depression.
In one study (3), 200 terminally ill patients were asked about their desire to die. Researchers found that of those who had a strong desire to die, 59% were depressed. Studies have also shown that anxiety can make people want to die. Treatment of mood and anxiety disorders can often help people feel much better and change their minds about hastening death.
people who ask death also can be influenced by other people they may feel they are placing too big a burden on their family and their death would relive that burden in most situations the family doesn't consider care giving a burden and really want to help
in most religion and like mine (Islam) assisted suicide is not allowed because your life is given and taken by god and suicide is murder and birth and death are part of the life process and in most religion the community should care for people who dying Islam's views on such issues as assisted suicide and euthanasia also are influenced by the belief that suffering and other difficulties might be beneficial, Shabana says. "There is this notion that you don"t always know what"s good for you," he says, "so it may be right that you should go through some kind of difficulty that tests your faith." Indeed, Shabana says, "in the Islamic tradition, end-of-life suffering is seen as a way to purify previous sins so that by the time you meet God, you do so in a [more pure] state." so the family will not accept it even if this is not their decision because of religious believes also Christianity is against assisted suicide because in Christian beliefs life is given by god
sorry for my bad english im tunisian so i don't use english often
First of all, I would like to refute how this story is contradicting her side. She as well talks about two men born with disabilities, enabling encouragement of this. But in the definition outlined, haven't we already showed you that we would legalize assisted suicide *for* people with incurable diseases? We are not legalizing it for people who just feel depressed, we are making this for the people who decides not to suffer within their conditions from their diagnosis.
[Assisted Suicide- the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease]
My opponents do not get my definition, as well as the fact that deafness and blindness cannot be cured in any way, therefore making it an incurable disease and fitting into these stances. For that, this is actually supporting my side, that these diseases are also incurable! Thank you!
In their first argument, my opponents state that because they are diagnosed in this way they will not have a mental state to think and depression comes in. But this is not close to what we are even talking about. We are talking about people who figured out that they were diagnosed BEFORE those conditions become into effect. We believe also that with assisted suicide, this will not make them go into shock and depression because they know that they have these pills to rely on for safe and painless death. It sounds bad, but let me reason with you. Without it, these patients can go insane and depression rates can grow higher. If we have assisted suicide as an option, these people will have lower counts of depression, therefore making better decisions. But decisions and depression aren't a big problem to assisted suicide. In fact, that is the reason why we need assisted suicide. Either way, if they are told that they have an incurable disease that can overtake their whole mind in their future, they still can decide for themselves because they know what is coming for them Before any harm from the disease even comes, they are in the right state of mind to think for themselves.
Anxiety disorders are curable, but we are talking about INCURABLE diseases. There are treatments for that but incurable ones have multiple years of treatment, along with suffering and this is why we need assisted suicide: to stop that suffering.
There second argument is on religious beliefs but that is illogically false in this debate because it is more towards the person's own knowledge and opinion. Just because there is religious beliefs doesn't mean that we should not have assisted suicide. If your Islam and don't believe in assisted suicide, then don't take it! These pills are there for you to take if you wish; they are not mandatory. We are not suggesting that everyone *needs* to take these pills, we are saying that it should be available for those who wants them. We are not all Islam's, we are not all Christians or Catholics. If you guys think that we shouldn't have it because our life is given by god, then don't take it! Other people don't believe in the same religion as you. Just because you are Islam doesn't mean that everyone with different religions shouldn't take them. You are not forced to eat these pills, its your own choice. My opponents also talked about murder and how suicide and that are the same things. But let me give you the definition of murder:
[Murder: an unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another *without the victims consent*]
[Suicide: the act or an instance of taking one's own life *voluntarily and intentionally*]
There is a difference. Sure it is the act of taking ones life/taking of one human being but the intentions are different. In murder, the victim did not want to die, but they were killed. In suicide, they want to die and they have intention to. There are differences in these stances. For that, my opponent should discard their whole argument on religious beliefs.
I have no new arguments to present, so I will end it right here and say: Assisted Suicide is a choice. Without that choice, people will suffer.
in your first argument you mention that assisted suicide promises a painless death other treatment such palliative care promise a painless death but without killing you palliative care provide relief from pain and other distressing symptoms and
integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of patient care and now we get back to depression depressed people who has incurable diseases should
be treated from depression before making such decision because they should have the best environment to make it and discover all the other option in the coming final months or weeks of his life
so without assisted suicide depression rates will not grow higher
also legalizing assisted suicide has bad effects on society more than the individuals adults and the people in control like governments should not encourage people to assisted suicide because they are role models to others so encouraging assisted suicide will encourage suicide in general especially for children and the next generations to come and spread a giving up mentality
It seems like you do not get the definition: It is only for people with disease that are INCURABLE.
My opponent does not get how having incurable diseases bring suffering. They refuted that they give and provide you relief and help you go through those tough times. However that is only partially true. They do not get how when you are diagnosed with these symptoms, you have to take medications and stay in the hospital for many years. That is the suffering I am talking about. It is in fact illogical that they promise there will be no suffering. There indeed will be suffering for these incurable diseases and the fact that making them go through that will cause depression as well, therefore also contradicting their side. They are not using common sense on the fact that they make illogical decisions because they are depressed, but does that still change the fact that they are depressed and diagnosed and will suffer doesn't change their decision. I admit they can get depressed but its a reality. They know they will die in horrible ways from their diseases and it scares them. Assisted Suicide brings them comfort because they know there is another way out with death: Painlessly. They make decisions even if they are depressed because they know their outcomes and depression can't trigger that. It may come afterwards, but if there is assisted suicide they are no longer depressed with the fact that they might die in very bad ways. Depression also makes them want to commit suicide in horrible ways without any assisted suicide. I believe that assisted suicide provides a clean death and painless, with no more suffering from that patient.
They also bring up the bad effects on society. But the government is not encouraging. We are *providing* one option for the incurable and not encouraging them to commit suicide. No, suicide is wrong but assisted suicide is a whole different scenario. You only have two options with incurable diseases suffering and death or painless death. The whole refutation on the impact to children and the next generations is false because they will grow up knowing that these incurable diseases have a way out.
This brings the debate to a summary, which I will give you below.
My opponents brought up religious beliefs but I believe this should not be considered because of the fact that it only applies to certain people and just because some people are Christian, doesn't mean that we should ban it. We should also discard the depression argument because of the fact that it is irrelevant to this whole case and very misleading.
We are making assisted suicide a choice, not a mandatory thing. If we provide it for other people who want it, they have that option. People who don't doesn't need to have it. They haven't refuted my patients rights claim so I will base off my view in there. These patients have rights. The other side is suggesting we ban it but their rights for their life is gone. We view that as immoral because these patients also have lives and they can make this decision whether or not they should have it. It also promises a painless death, making it a great choice for those who are suffering.
Here is a balance. The harms without assisted suicide is more vast. We branch out to people trying to commit by themselves, suffering and gone rights. The benefits of assisted suicide weight these out much farther. We have: Painless death, another choice for those suffering, rights from patients and summed up: another option we should consider into our future.
I proudly propose assisted suicide
Good debate! Best wishes to Con and for his/her future debates!
[Check out my abortion topic. It's a closed debate so if your willing to debate, apply in the comments]
to give supportive to people in the final phase of a terminal illness and focus on comfort and quality of life, rather than cure
The goal is to enable patients to be comfortable and free of pain, so that they live each day as fully as possible. Aggressive methods of pain control may be used. Hospice programs generally are home-based also I m not against legalization of assisted suicide but I m against picturing assisted suicide as a romantic beautiful death but still we have to find a balance I think that everyone has the right to make such decision it is a personal choice may be it s an option to consider in the future but not now when human accept each other choices and personal decision and when everyone has the financial capability to take all kinds of medical treatment
amazing debate!best wishes to pro and for his/her future it was a pleasure to debate you on my first debate
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kozu 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I award S/G to Pro, since Con's argument were severely effected because of his English skills. Its difficult to weigh the arguments when you don't understand what they are, so I implore Con to proof read their rounds before posting in the future. I will also being giving argument points to Pro since I feel she's successfully shown the negative impacts of denying someone their freedom to die. A bulk of Con's arguments attacked the harms of assisted suicide for people with treatable conditions like depression or anxiety. However Pro's definition given in R1 makes us assume that she's only applying this to incurable individuals, so I can't consider Con's arguments since they're technically a straw-man. I also didn't feel there was enough support for the religious argument to trump the harms to autonomy that denying assisted suicide would cost. As a note to pro, you should also proof-read a bit, you keep adding an "s" to a lot of your words, like when you say "my oppentents". No biggie tho
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.