The Instigator
Rhys273
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Doctor Assisted Death

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...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 533 times Debate No: 101064
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Rhys273

Con

Doctor Assisted Death is not only morally wrong but it is wrong in the eyes of God.

If you look in the Hippocratic Oath (The Oath that medical professionals must swear to) in paragraph 6, last line it says "Above all, I must not play at God." but if you are helping someone take there life, would that not be messing with God"s plan for that person?

http://guides.library.jhu.edu...
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Thanks for instigating this critical debate about Doctor Assisted Death (DAD).

I will first respond to my opponent's arguments and then lay out my own.

REBUTTALS

Con first argues that DAD "is wrong in the eyes of God". However, Con's argument fails for three reasons:

1: Evidence: Con fails to present any evidence about God's supposed opinion on DAD. As such, we don't know what God thinks about DAD at all.

2: Religious differences: Con fails to consider that his God may not be the God of all peoples of this planet. For example, atheists have no god, and suicide is perfectly acceptable within many religions (https://www.deathwithdignity.org...). For these people, whatever possible opinon Con's God may have on DAD is irrelevant. Even within his Con's own faith, there are many people who consider God to be merciful and willing to excuse sins like suicide because the person was in terrible anguish or excruciating pain. As such, it doesn't make sense to prevent these people from choosing their own path. It's their soul, not ours.

3: God's plan: This response is twofold.

3.1: If God wanted to prevent someone from committing DAD, then God would surely intervene. Since God has not intervened, that means that this DAD was also part of God's plan. In his infinite wisdom, he has chosen to let this person take their own life. We may not understand his reasons -- but he is a higher intellect and cannot be questioned.

3.2: To me, it seems wrong to say that humans should always worry about interfering with God's plan. For example: couldn't one extend Con's logic and say that any medical procedure is against God's plan, because it may increase or decrease that person's lifespan? If it is against God's plan to take a life, then it must also be against God's plan to save a life. But if we didn't do this, everyone would live brutish and short lives. Would Con argue that, if his grandmother is dieing of cancer, then it is "playing God" to treat her? Should Con let his grandmother die, just because he's worried about God's plan? No. God is merciful and wants us to live long and beautiful lives full of joy: he will know when the time is right. And if that time is when one of his Earthly subjects chooses DAD to move themselves off this mortal coil, then so be it.


Con second argues that DAD is morally wrong because it's in the Hippocratic Oath not to play God. (Con sent the wrong link; this is the correct one: http://guides.library.jhu.edu...).

It is true that the Hippocratic oath tells us that doctors should not play at God.

However, I argue that it is not "playing at God" to assist someone else's life. Look at the third argument I made about God's plan. If it is "playing at God" to take a life, then it is also "playing at God" to save a life. This should be obviously problematic for the same reasons as above. Medicine would grind to a halt. Nobody would ever save a life -- or give any drugs, or set any bones -- for fear of "playing at God". This is obviously absurd. Without medicine, we wouldn't need the Hippocratic Oath in the first place!

As such: DAD is not "playing at God", and the Hippocratic Oath should have no problem with allowing doctors to assist their patients in determining how -- and if -- they live or die.

PRO CASE

Everyone should have the right to determine what happens to their own body. That's why rape is wrong: someone is using your body against your will. That's why murder is wrong: your life is taken away against your will. And that's why DAD is acceptable: if someone decides that, in the face of some terminal illness, or while undergoing unbelievable pain, they want to pass on, that is their choice. It is true freedom to do as you wish with your body, and DAD is the ultimate expression of that freedom.

In summary: If you believe that people should be able to determine how they live, then you must also believe that people should be able to determine how they die.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
@sdig
Quit trying to cheat. Losing by your own merits, is better than a fake victory through trading favors.
Posted by sdignoseeintfo 1 year ago
sdignoseeintfo
Hey can you help con win "Was the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?" if you do so I will vote for you in your "privacy is an outdated norm in society." debate
Posted by sdignoseeintfo 1 year ago
sdignoseeintfo
Hey can you help me win "Was the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?" if you do so I will vote for you in your debate
Posted by VictoriaHutt.16 1 year ago
VictoriaHutt.16
I completely agree with the instigator of this argument, but am interested nonetheless to see the contender's side of the argument. I would debate, but someone is already debating my position, so I guess I will just wish the instigator the best of luck with this argument!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 1 year ago
Yraelz
Rhys273FuzzyCatPotatoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In a one round debate the opposition is going to get uncontested responses. Any mildly competent debater is going to sweep from that position. I award Pro convincing arguments based on two things. (1) I buy that god would intervene if it didn't like DAD and (2) I buy that assisted suicide is not playing at god and therefore doesn't violate the Hippocratic Oath.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Rhys273FuzzyCatPotatoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Single round debate, so contender points went entirely non-contested. ... instigator did a highly fallacious appeal along the lines of 'do this because I say that my imaginary friend said to' (not his wording), con shot it full of holes such as conflicting imaginary friends who are said to want different things, and the very role of a doctor is to alter lifespans (arguing doctors should not exist was neither supported nor inferred by the other side).
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Rhys273FuzzyCatPotatoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued that God is against Doctor Assisted Suicide (DAD). Pro refuted this by pointing out that Con didn't offer any evidence. Pro made the case that everybody should have the right to DAD. This argument was not refuted