The Instigator
paulsenkatie
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Daktoria
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Euthanasia:Mercy Killing

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...
Daktoria
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,908 times Debate No: 31227
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

paulsenkatie

Pro

I feel that if a person who is on life support, but doesn't want to live should be granted the rights to be euthanized. Death is a right that all humans are granted, but those who can't like Ramon Sampedro, who was a quadraplegic for 28 years and want to die with dignity, should have the right to choose if they want to live or not. Only you make the choices for your own life (after you're out of your parents care of course). Now if people who get depressed want to use euthanasia to kill themselves, that's just wrong and stupid. If you're depressed just get help.
Daktoria

Con

There are a few problems with that.

One, it's not entirely possible to determine consent, and if consent is invalidly determined, it can't be fixed. People in immense suffering and struggle can claim they want to die when in reality, they're just in lots of pain. I'm not sure why you made that claim about depression either. Immense pain versus depression is a subjective value judgment.

Two, euthanasia can be manipulated as an excuse to get away with murder from what I just said. People can deliberately misinterpret "consent" as an excuse to kill someone for one's own good.

Three, a "right to die" suggests tolerance for social alienation. That is a government could behave negligently because it could say, "Our people have the right to leave if they don't like living under our rule of law." It also allows parents to get off the hook from assimilating their children into society. They can say, "If our kids hate being alive, they can kill themselves."

Overall, there's an issue of due diligence at stake. Tolerating a right to die allows for due diligence to be neglected, and is a conflict of interest against citizens who have a right to exist in a respectful society.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nayrb 3 years ago
Nayrb
I am in a debate regarding this. One issue that I have which is often over looked is we are fundamentally changing the role of the doctor. I truly appreciate there are cases of suffering. What about the impact on the doctor? Loosing a patient to nature's way is one thing. Loading up a needle, knowing what you are doing will kill someone is a huge shift in job description. How is this to be handled?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
paulsenkatieDaktoriaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: I'll second the other voter that said this wasn't much of a debate. Still, Pros advantages are taken out by Cons due diligence argument, which since its a one round debate gets no response and carries the ballot.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 3 years ago
Grantmac18
paulsenkatieDaktoriaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: This was not much of a debate, Pro should have affirmed her position with greater emphasis, given the length of the debate. Conduct, S&G, and sources were observably even. I award arguments to Pro, simply for affirming the right to choose as a means of individual freedom. Con's claims are guilty of gross generalizations, a "right to die" does not suggest tolerance for social alienation; such a claim requires a sufficient level of supported evidence. The resolution was whether an individual should be granted the right to be euthanized, though issues may arise as to the method of acquiring said consent, Con did not adequately address the topic thus my reluctant vote for Pro.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
paulsenkatieDaktoriaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made convincing arguments against pro that have logic, while pro used opinions and "I feel". Conduct to pro because con's "They can say, If our kids hate being alive, they can kill themselves." argument is a strawman- pro's case wasn't to allow mercy killing for people who are depressed with their lives.