The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Euthanasia - Right or wrong?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,482 times Debate No: 21852
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I am a strong believer that Euthanasia, no matter what the circumstances, is wrong. Killing someone just because of the suffrage they are facing, does not enable doctors or surgeons to take it into their own hands to "take the pain away" or to kill them.


I accept the debate and challenge the instigator to convince the audience that euthanasia is wrong in every circumstance.

To start I'll counter your current argument.

Killing someone just because of the sufferage they are facing, does not enable doctors to take it into their own hands."
Euthanasia is only committed when the patients requests it. Doctors are not allowed to commit euthanasia without the patients permission. If the patient is unable to give permission (for example if the patient is in a coma or suffers from dementia), the decision will be made in discussion by family members and the doctors.

As an atheist I don't believe every suffering in the world has a purpose and when a patient is in heavy pain and requests to be relieved, it should be the doctors duty to aid the patient with that. And to establish that it's not a cold blooded murder, the euthanasia will be committed through a dosis of barbiturate, which will sedate the patient and put him/her in a deep sleep and will eventually shut down the body of the patient which will cause him to die in his/her sleep.

I'm waiting for your response.;
Debate Round No. 1


I understand that the patient decides whether the doctor performs the proccess or not, but that doesn't mean that it is neccesarily the most societal decision. The patient may be under a certain influence, or may just want their life to be over. What should REALLY influence the decision, is the doctors thought. The doctor is the EXPERT and they decide what is best for the patient. And in this case, they are losing no matter what. But hey, that's life. If they choose to keep the patient alive (which they should), the patient will suffer, but keep their life. If the doctor decides to kill the patient, they are doing what is the easy way out. It's not only the easy way out, but its incorrect in our society, as human beings.


I thank my opponent for the quick response.

"The doctor is the expert and they decide what is best for the patient."
I remember you saying the doctors should not take matter into their own hands.
Since you are right that doctors know more about the cicumstance than the patients it should not be up to the doctors to decide whether the patient dies or keeps suffering. It should be up to the patient since it's his/her life.

"If the doctor decides to kill the patient, they are doing what is the easy way out."
You are implying the patient or the doctor should take the hard way, making the patient suffer. Again, this is 100 percent up to the patient itself. If he/she is really old and suffers from an illness that will eventually kill them, I can understand that the patient sees no reason to delay the end. Sure, if the patient is young and there is still hope for him/her, euthanasia may not be the right decision. But the point of the debate was to convince that euthanasia is wrong in every circumstance.

"It's incorrect in our society."
I think you say this with too much confidence since it's really more of an opinion. Sure in medieval times aiding a patient in killing himself would be a scandal, but since this is the 21st century, people have more freedom and are permitted to make their own choices.
Debate Round No. 2


Right, it is their life. And yes, I am implying that they should take the hard way. Our society is based off of things that may be hard, but opposing them would be frowned upon. And the patient should only have say in what happens to them, to a certain extent.

Being a doctor, you'd think that they would have enough sense in them to realize that they should finish out their life the way that they are meant to be.

I remember your previous comment about being an athiest. Not to base the whole thing around religion, but I believe that god is the only person who has the right to take someones life. The doctor IS and expert, and I will stick to that. The doctor SHOULD be the one making the decision, and I'll stick to that. What I'm trying to prove, is that Euthanasia should not even be an option. Either you die naturally, or you don't die at all.

I guess the voters decision will mainly be based around religion. Depending on who believes what when it comes to Gods' control.


So if only God has the right to take a life then doctors trying to cure people should be wrong too since God's the one making decisions. So if the doctors decide to commit euthanasia it should be okay regardless of the choice of patient?

Euthanasia is indeed not always an option, but when someone is in extreme pain and has no further reason to keep struggling and if the patient REQUESTS to be put out of his/her misery, it should be the doctor's duty to aid the person with this.

I am asking the voters not to vote if you think euthanasia is right or wrong, but the one with the most convincing arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
I'm not sure who to vote for here....and I don't want to vote on my personal both need practice...
Posted by HunterLienhart 4 years ago
Both. They are both performed for the cause of putting a patient to rest.
Posted by Doulos1202 4 years ago
There are two types of euthanasia, passive and active. Are you arguing that both are unacceptable or just. active?
Posted by TheApologist 4 years ago
Absolutely. I completely agree. I will be interested to watch this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 4 years ago
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's position seemed contradictory with his emphasis on the doctor's role despite the immoral of euthanasia that he should have argued for and Pro correctly catches him on it. Con did not bring up a "religious argument" until R3 which was way too late.