The Instigator
TheHitchslap
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
birdlandmemories
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Bsh1 Debate Tournament: The U.S. Government Should Legalize Euthanasia.

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 3 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 963 times Debate No: 45953
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

TheHitchslap

Pro

This is for the Bsh1 Debate Tournament: Politics division.

The resolution is as follows: The US Government Should Legalize Euthanasia.

Because this challenges the status quo, I have BOP. Because my opponent is upholding the status quo, anything short of meeting the BOP means my opponent wins the debate.

Standard DDO Code of Conduct applies here.
Standard debate rules apply here.

Goodluck and have fun!

First round acceptance.
birdlandmemories

Con

I accept this debate, and look forward to it. Goodluck to my opponent as well.
Debate Round No. 1
TheHitchslap

Pro

We Already Allow Suicides:

First of all, if a person is actually determined to commit a suicide and carries his/her actions out successfully, it does not make sense to have this action as illegal. We cannot imprison a body as a result, nor can we fault the family of the person committing suicide, ergo in this context of legality it simply makes more sense to legalize assisted-suicide by default. If the legal system is a set of state-enforced mechanisms to deter undesirable behaviours and to offer incentives to desirable behaviours, then we can see there is no reason to keep assisted suicides illegal, we cannot force that person to no longer want to kill themselves should they be successful.

Say your life is only held onto by "life support", this machine is breathing for you, feeding you, and is the only thing actually keeping you alive due to a critical injury. You are in fact allowed to refuse it, causing your own death. In other words, by complicity the doctors allowing you to refuse treatment, they are assisting your suicide. Now one might say the doctors ought to force the patient, however this would void power of attorney, and ergo would be illegal in such an event. Doctors are suppose to comply with the consent of their patients, thus if the patient refuses treatment, this is a form of suicide.

In fact, the following states already have legalized assisted suicides: Montana, Oregon, and Washington (State)
http://www.cbc.ca...

This Furthers the Liberty of the Individual:

This argument is simple and straight-forward. You do not choose to be born or not. This seems to be in a half-determined part of the world. We all start as cells, and morph into people. If that is the case, then why can't a person refuse this life by euthanasia?


The Physical Can Complete His Duty to His Patients More Intimately:

In medical ethics, the doctor must do his best within the limitations of the law to relieve the pain of the patient. Along with the fact that he must preserve the dignity of said patient. If a patient has a terminal illness, then in the name of relieving pain, that doctor can and should put to death his patient to lessen the suffering. (Again on the condition of informed consent)

Less Costly to the System:

I shall quote a fellow DDO member on here in another debate, he put it elegantly.

"Whatever way one looks at it, dying costs money. In fact, a person in Miami will be spending around $23,000 on medical bills in the last six months of his/her life [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com......]This cost is for dying without the use of PAS. However, a person, using PAS, would only spend approximately $10,000 (in 1995 dollars) on medical bills [http://www.nejm.org......]. I’d like you to think about that. If a person chooses to have a PAS, this would mean that his/her surviving relatives would have about $13,000 that they didn’t before to put toward a funeral (a traditional funeral ranges from $7,000 to over $10,000 [http://www.funeralswithlove.com......]), or other debts that may need to be paid. Let’s say that this patient who wishes to have a PAS, may have un-wealthy relatives, or he/she may be un-wealthy. Not only is he/she suffering, but he/she is also paying quite a bit of medical bills to be kept alive, especially when he/she doesn’t wish to be in the first place. So, given the opportunity to choose, not only would he/she be relieving his/herself of suffering, but also saving money for his/her relatives or beneficiaries as well." ~ DetectableNinja

All Countries Named Have Universal Care When Giving Suicides:

Legally, the only person capable of administering said assistance to suicide would be the doctors, that is it, not some private firm. This would ideally prevent anyone from trying to convince someone to undergo PAS for any fraudulent reasons.

Finally, Say You're Married, and You Are a Proxy For Someone Incapable of Making Decisions:

This can lead to a very uncomfortable scenario. The person trusted with making decisions may suffer from depression or other psychological trauma wondering if they're making decisions consistent with that patent's wishes. If someone was unable to move or speak, and was in pain, would they want to continue to fight? Or finally die and be at peace? Likewise, what about other people putting pressure on that proxy that might be in direct violation of the patients wishes? How would they feel? PAS is another option which enables this scenario to be completely by-passed, and not allow that poor person designated as a proxy to have to shoulder so much burden when the time comes (should it ever come).

Thank you!

Summary:
(1) Already allow it, cannot charge a body
(2) Furthers liberty
(3) Doctor does his duty more
(4) Save on costs
(5) Relieves strains on proxies

Therefore, we can conclude that the US ought to legalize doctor assisted suicides (a.k.a PAS)

Over to my opponent!

birdlandmemories

Con

Please remove from the tourney, as I am new to the subject of Euthanasia, and don't know much about it. Good luck to TheHitchslap in future rounds.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
TheHitchslap

Pro

Thanks bird.
Arguments extended.
Me for arguments. Opponent for conduct. Have a nice day!
birdlandmemories

Con

birdlandmemories forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheHitchslap

Pro

argus ext

birdland can you just type something so we can skip the timer to the end? Thanks
birdlandmemories

Con

This debate is now officially in the voting period.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
Ah, arguing against Euthanasia is nearly impossible.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
TheHitchslapbirdlandmemoriesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. S&G was equal enough. As to arguments: First, Con conceded. So it's relatively moot. But: Pro made a solid case. I don't think the "We already allow suicides" argument was solid, but the others were good points that would have required response which, of course, didn't occur. As to sourcing: Pro provided some, which were reliable and bolstered his case, while Con gave none. So Arguments and Sources to Pro as well. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
TheHitchslapbirdlandmemoriesTied
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: Opponent withdrew from debate.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
TheHitchslapbirdlandmemoriesTied
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: Forfeited.