The Instigator
JonathanVN
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
UchihaMadara
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
UchihaMadara
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,378 times Debate No: 61941
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

JonathanVN

Con

As the title of the debate would imply, the purpose of this argument is to discuss whether or not euthanasia should be legal in medical practices. I am against this (attacking it), and thus I would expect my opponent to argue in favor of it. The first round of five is solely for acceptance, and each person will have three whole days to respond before forfeiture of the round. May the smartest man win!
UchihaMadara

Pro

I accept.

Hopefully this Euthanasia debate won't end up in an FF like my other one...

Good luck, Con!
Debate Round No. 1
JonathanVN

Con

I would like to thank UchihaMadara for accepting this debate for the "pro" side. Hopefully the judges will throw away any unbiased opinions toward this matter that they had previously.

First off, I would like to define some terms.

Euthanasia - the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering.

There could perhaps be multiple definitions of euthanasia, such as voluntary euthanasia (EV), in which the physician kills the patient based on family recommendations. In other words, the patients themselves may not be in dire circumstance. The other one is "physician-assisted suicide" (PAS). Please note that we will solely be using the literal definition of euthanasia in this argument. While you can argue various aspects on the other ones, please refer to the main definition above to guide the debate.

With that being said, I would first like to debunk a few things about euthanasia that are very erroneous.

First off, many physicians and common people ignorantly refer to euthanasia as "easy death" or "mercy killing." In all honesty, little ease or mercy truly arises from this procedure. In all actuality, proponents of euthanasia champion a form of assisted suicide, as a plethora of benefits exist from the termination of life. Physicians begin to naturally think of the benefits they would be accruing to perform this euthanasia, instead of being concerned with the actual patient.

This where the Hippocratic Oath comes in to play. According to the [original] Hippocratic Oath (the medical "constitution" as deemed by many), a physician, by law, "Is to neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor to make a suggestion to its effect." Though some of the original's tenets have transformed drastically, this one has remained true to Hippocrates and the physicians of old.

As reported by Harvard graduate and University of Chicago Medical School professor, Leon Kass, "In foreswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can make killing him right." In other words, physicians are entitled to uphold the utmost respect and reverence to the human body. A Hippocratic physician, which is what all physicians technically are, is not respecting the body by performing this procedure.

By nature, ending a patient's life remains completely contradictory to a physician's practice and does not depend on circumstance. (One could render a similar argument against abortion too, but we are sticking to euthanasia here). Restraining from giving the patients lethal doses of poison does not reflect a doctor's views on autonomy or freedom for the suffering. It, however, does demonstrate the sacred devotion of medical practice and the arcane dignity that revolves around human life.

Ancient Egyptian physicians, and doctors all throughout history, were thought to have a sacred role in life. Galen himself, the "medical rebel," realized his practice should be taken extremely seriously.

Unfortunately, the advancement of euthanasia has also engendered a "slippery slope" effect to the legalization of murder. By definition, the euthanasia will not take place unless a patient orders a physician to perform it. This falls under both the voluntary euthanasia and PAS categories as discussed above. However, voluntary leads to involuntary euthanasia, via the lack of delineation between the two. Since euthanasia benefits the doctor's wage by performing the procedure and taking the patient " out of their misery," indirect becomes normal. If murdering one in this fashion yields such incredible comforts, why should a physician even ask for the consent of the patient/family?

Essentially, euthanasia enables all physicians, even the unscrupulous, to determine the value of each patient's life and to have the power to thwart it on a whim, if given permission.

According to logic standards, one can reasonably deduce that euthanasia no longer prohibits all forms of murder. Thus, its very base parallels that of unconstitutional and illegal activity, and therefore remains unethical and not sacred.

However, let us not just think about the legal/moral side of this. Let us look to other aspects of the medical field that have been hurting because of this.

Due to the wider prevalence of euthanasia, palliative (end-of-life) care opportunities have dwindled. The Netherlands, for example, demonstrates the disastrous effects that the legalization of euthanasia has caused in regards to palliative care. Wesley Smith, a prominent lawyer for bioethics, claims that a Dutch physician has asked: "Why should I worry about palliation when I have euthanasia?" In this way, the entire ethical background has shifted for medical purposes, as doctors view assisted suicide as a means to save their resources and time. Moreover, proponents for the legalization of "mercy killing" employ a philosophy that monetary gain and ease of labor are more important than human life. This, in turn, completely comprises the original purpose of medical practice, and now all physicians lose a sense of credibility.

Plus, according to the Discovery Institute, very few young physicians seek specialties in palliative care due to the increased talk of euthanasia legalization. Therefore, hospice facilities have rapidly declined, and everyone has to suffer from this upcoming possibility.

I don't think having hospice facilities decline all for the sake of legalizing euthanasia is worth it. Do you judges?

1) Kass, Leon, MD, PhD. Committee on Social Thought and for the College. University of Chicago. Public Interest, Winter of 1989.
2) Smith, Wesley J., JD. "Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics." Discovery Institute. 1997.
3) Various sources. "Euthanasia." Pros and Cons of Euthanasia. Web. Jan. 7, 2014. http://euthanasia.procon.org...
UchihaMadara

Pro

Thanks, Con.
I will present a (very) brief constructive case, this round.
Please note that I am only arguing for euthanasia *with* the consent of the patient-- if legalized, it would not be the decision of the patient's family members or the attending physician.

The first thing that must be done in order to show that euthanasia should be legalized is to demonstrate that with the right to life comes the right to death. I think my opponent would agree that all citizens have a right to life, though I can certainly support that notion further if he wishes to contest it. Like is the case with any right, we have the right to abstain from exercising it; after all, if we cannot do that, it is no longer a right-- it is an obligation. The right to life does not require us to continue living any more than the right to free speech requires us to speak our minds. The government simply does not have the power to *force* someone to continue living when they do not wish to do so, as that would be a clear rights violation. So it has been established that people do, indeed, have the right to death.
Now, why does this lead to the conclusion that euthanasia should be legalized? It is simply a matter of practicality. Having euthanasia administered in a clinical setting is by far the safest and least painful way for one to exercise their right to death (my opponent would have to provide some sort of counter-example to successfully contest this); by criminalizing euthanasia, the government is doing nothing more than unnecessarily causing suffering to citizens, which is clearly contradictory to the role of the state (i.e. promoting general welfare). Hence, euthanasia should be legalized.
The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 2
JonathanVN

Con

Thank you for your response. It is certainly appreciated that a debate can be held in this area without forfeiture.

While pro's arguments are taken seriously and respectfully, there are a litany of erroneous assumptions that he is making. First of all, he is assuming that everyone has a right to death. His logic is, and I quote:

"The first thing that must be done in order to show that euthanasia should be legalized is to demonstrate that with the right to life comes the right to death. I think my opponent would agree that all citizens have a right to life""

I do agree that we as citizens have the right to life, however, that does not mean that we have the right to death. Life and death are totally different things, and the government does, in fact, want to promote the general welfare and well-being of its citizens. While you could argue that "putting someone to sleep" is promoting well-being, it all depends on interpretation of the constitution. Plus, pro still hasn't responded to any of my arguments regarding the statements of the Hippocratic oath. Though the constitution is instrumental to follow, the Hippocratic oath is just as important when dealing with medical practice.

According to Tom Coburn, doctor and US Senator, says that no one wants to have doctors deciding who lives and who dies. "We do not have that power"we are becoming God. The Declaration of Independence says that we should have the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing in it says we have the right to pursue death, nothing.

Pro is also forgetting the Due Process Clause that protects "the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest." The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of rejection to permit it by vote of 9-0, in the Washington vs. Glucksberg case. Even though many of the judges are "pro-choice," this not affect the interpretations of stare decisis made in previous cases.

Ultimately, euthanasia is a right of intrusion, not the general right to control death and its timing/manner. This is the simple basis that of the constitutional right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. However, restrictions placed on suicide do not have any intrusions, but it simply is preventing individuals from hindering the natural process and cycle of death. These are two different principles as well.

The New York State Task Force on Life and Law argued that: "While restrictions on suicide do limit individual autonomy, the bare fact that individual options are constrained does not render such limits unconstitutional""

Is intrusion, therefore, limiting the freedom (right) of the population? Perhaps. Does it become unconstitutional? No. Stare decisis remains here.

Again, I will not provide a counter-example to contest that "Having euthanasia administered in a clinical setting is by far the safest and least painful way for one to exercise their right to death," because I never agreed with this assumption of the right to death. I have proved it erroneous.

Based on judicial procedures and legal processes, it remains the case that Euthanasia should not be legal in medical practice. Though pro's arguments are well taken, they are not conclusive enough to overturn stare decisis.
UchihaMadara

Pro

Thanks, Con.
Apologies for the brevity of my constuctive case; I can assure you my rebuttals round will be longer :)
My opponent's arguments seem to largely concern themselves with problems surrounding the practical implementation of legalized euthanasia; I will independently address each of his concerns.

R1) Hippocratic Oath

Con cites the Hippocratic Oath as a reason for why doctors should not ever be allowed to euthanize their patients, even if they have full consent. Firstly, my opponent has not yet established that the Hippocratic Oath has the objective authority necessary for us to simply take its assertions as ethical laws, as Con seems to be doing. Secondly, Con goes on to say that "Though some of the original's tenets have transformed drastically, this one has remained true to Hippocrates and the physicians of old." No justification is provided for why this tenet of the Hippocratic Oath should be treated any differently than the ones which have 'transformed drastically'... now that we have the technology to perform the painless 'mercy' killing of the terminally ill, why should this tenet not be subject to the same "drastic transformation" of some of the other tenets? Seeing that such changes have occurred at all, the Hippocratic Oath is evidently not meant to be some sort of rigid, unchanging code of conduct for doctors-- it must adapt to the times. The Hippocratic Oath, on its own, does not serve as a firm basis for condemning euthanasia.

R2) Human Dignity

Con claims that by abstaining from administering euthanasia, a doctor is respecting the "arcane dignity that revolves around human life". However, Con never actually objectively shows that this dignity resides in all humans-- all he has provided is the bare assertion of its existence. What exactly IS "dignity", anyways? According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, it is "the quality of being worthy of honor or respect" [1]. In that case, it would seem that euthanasia would only serve to *preserve* a human's dignity! If a person is terminally ill to the point that they no longer wish to live, is it not an insult to their dignity to force them to continue living, enduring great suffering as their overall condition gets more and more pathetic each day? Administering euthanasia upon the patients consent allows them to die on their own terms and with *greater* dignity than otherwise. The concept of human dignity, if it exists as anything more than a subjective construct of Con's imagination, would seem to only support the legalization of euthanasia.

R3) Slippery Slope

The title of this rebuttal, a phrase employed by Con himself, gives away this argument's fatal flaw: it is, indeed, a slippery slope logical fallacy [2]. If by some obscure reasoning, Con can justify Y resulting from X, and we accept Y as bad, that in no way indicates that X is bad as well-- unless it can be proven that legalizing euthanasia will inevitably result in the legalization of murder, there is no way for us to rationally condemn euthanasia on the basis of such reasoning. Con's reasoning, far from showing inevitability, is fallacious; it ignores the fact that the administering of euthanasia can *only* occur with the consent of the patient. There is no logical reason to believe that doctors will suddenly stop paying attention to consent after euthanasia becomes more widespread. This argument is logically flawed.

R4) Palliative Care

Con takes up a righteous tone, proclaiming that euthanasia having caused a decline in palliative care is a horrendous outrage, yet we are not given any reason by Con to agree with his assessment of this noted trend. From Time Magazine: "One out of every four Medicare dollars—over $125 billion—is spent on care near the end of life, and the financial burden on families can be staggering. Yet aggressive treatment too often fails to improve or lengthen the lives of the terminally ill... Says Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and author of 'The Best Care Possible': 'When patients have a terminal illness, at some point more disease treatment does not equal better care.'" [3]. Not only are there financial reasons to prefer euthanasia over extensive palliative care, but such aggressive end-of-life also tends to cause the patient far more suffering than simply administering euthanasia does. If Con wants us to buy his argument, here, he needs to show *why* euthanasia causing a decline in palliative is a bad thing which warrants the banning of euthanasia.


CONCLUSION: All of Con's arguments have been fully refuted. I will proceed to defend my opening argument regarding the rights-based justification of euthanasia's legality next round.


[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

[3] http://time.com...
Debate Round No. 3
JonathanVN

Con

Thank you for your response, pro. I have absolutely no problem with the brevity of your response. It is completely understandable.

R1) Hippocratic Oath

Pro is correct in saying that I cite the Hippocratic Oath as one of the many reasons why euthanasia should not be legalized. The Hippocratic Oath, under law, does actually have that power because all physicians must swear to abide and follow the tenets listed in it. Since the physicians are promising to follow it under oath, it certainly does have the legal objective authority necessary to thwart the act of euthanasia. Solely breaking the Hippocratic Oath has no direct consequences, per se, but it is almost always deemed as malpractice. Euthanasia is no different.

As mentioned in the previous round of my debate, the reason that this tenet cannot be subject to such drastic transformation is due to stare decisis. The Supreme Court has overturned the other tenets that have changed due to overwhelming evidence of pragmatism, meaning that they no longer applied to modern day practice. However, though you say that "we have the technology to perform the painless 'mercy' killing of the terminally ill," the right to death still has not been established, and thus it still implies a textualist interpretation.

R2) Human dignity

By using pro's definition of the word "dignity," we see that keeping euthanasia illegal actually helps maintain human dignity, unlike the assertions pro made. Essentially, when a doctor performs euthanasia, he or she is saying that that person is no longer worth living. They are going to die a slow and painful death anyway, so might as well take them out quickly. However, this goes completely against human dignity! According to the definition presented in this debate, dignity is "the quality of being worthy of honor or respect." I personally find it very disrespectful to have a doctor imply that the patient is not worth the life that he or she has right to live. There is also no honor in that request, seeing that, according to Merriam-Webster"s Dictionary, honor means: "respect that is given to someone (or something) that is admired." [1] If a doctor were to euthanize a patient, he or she would be saying that the law and the Hippocratic oath aren't things to be admired. As established earlier, this goes against the very basis of the physician occupation.

R3) Slippery Slope

The slippery slope effect I believe pro is referring to is that euthanasia will result in the legalization of murder. Please note that I never actually said this would be the case; I simply stated that a slippery slope is currently happening that is making the legalization of murder potentially much more acceptable. I am saying that when indirect becomes direct and abnormal becomes normal, laws will be compromised. An example of this can be seen in abortion. First off, abortion was used when doctors could detect early-term defections in the growth of children. If the unborn baby was going to have virtually no chance of living, then the doctor could perform an abortion with the consent of the parent. Then, rape and incest became legally included as well, up until now when doctors can abort a baby with "no questions asked." I'm not saying Euthanasia will follow abortion, because that definitely is a slippery slope. However, I am implying that when rules and barriers are broken, there is historic evidence that would demonstrate an unwise compromise of ethics.

R4) Palliative Care

Pro seems to be taking a cost-efficient stance to euthanasia in this rebuttal. While he makes some valid points as to how relatively inexpensive euthanasia is to end of life care, he is missing the bigger picture. According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, up to 66% of people who desire euthanasia claim the right to die in order not to cause their family the financial burden. [2] Therefore, more and more patients are giving up their lives to try to help their loved ones. Again, one could argue that if it is their choice to do so, then why stop them? Well, basically this research shows us that euthanasia isn't even mostly about life and death anymore; it's about saving money! Though money is obviously important in society, it truly is trivial when compared to the life of a loved one. Euthanasia seems to be putting money on an equally high (and slightly higher) pedestal than life itself. That is undoubtedly scary and morally incorrect.

Also, pro needs to be careful and watch how he words his phrases here. He says, 'If Con wants us to buy his argument, here, he needs to show *why* euthanasia causing a decline in palliative is a bad thing which warrants the banning of euthanasia." From a legal standpoint, I don't need to prove or show why euthanasia causing the decline of palliative care warrants the banning of euthanasia, because euthanasia is mostly illegal anyway. The topic of this debate is: "Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice." Since it is mostly illegal, pro most realize that I do not have to prove why it should be banned due to stare decisis.

I have, however, defended my stance and pro's points have been refuted as well. I urge a con vote.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.life.org.nz...
UchihaMadara

Pro

Thanks, Con.
Con's sole means of attacking my opening argument is questioning the existence of the right to death; however, his points against it basically just ignore all the logical justification I gave for it... I will refute his rebuttal point by point for lack of a better way to organize this.

"I do agree that we as citizens have the right to life, however, that does not mean that we have the right to death. Life and death are totally different things,"

False. Death is nothing more than the absence of life. Since my life is my own property, I am free to discard it, just as I am free to discard my own material property. I used this exact same logic to justify the existence of the right to death in my opening argument, but Con has not even attempted to attack that justification.

"While you could argue that "putting someone to sleep" is promoting well-being, it all depends on interpretation of the constitution."

Con concedes that euthanasia can be constitutional.

"According to Tom Coburn, doctor and US Senator, says that no one wants to have doctors deciding who lives and who dies."

As I stated in the beginning of my constructive case, euthanasia would only be allowed to be administered with the full consent of the patient; it would not be the doctors who are "deciding who lives and who dies"-- it would be the individuals deciding for themselves whether or not they personally want to live or die, as they should be able to.

"The Declaration of Independence says that we should have the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing in it says we have the right to pursue death, nothing."

First of all, the Declaration of Independence no longer has any legal authority (if it ever did); it is simply an artifact of historical significance. Secondly, the exact wordings are actually "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; there is nothing about "pursuing life" in there. We have the right to keep our lives if we wish to do so, and that logically entails the right to give up our lives if we wish to do so (i.e. the right to death), *especially* if doing so would aid in our pursuit of happiness, which is often the case with terminally ill patients who request euthanasia.

"Pro is also forgetting the Due Process Clause that protects "the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest." The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of rejection to permit it by vote of 9-0"

This resolution is not at all specific to the United States; the resolution makes a general statement about legalizing euthanasia in medical practice, indicating universal application of the motion. In other words, by citing a Supreme Court case, Con is simply committing the appeal to authority fallacy, since the Supreme Court holds no legal authority outside of the United States. My philosophical reasoning supporting the right to death should obviously take precedence over Con's fallacious logic, here.

"[R]estrictions placed on suicide do not have any intrusions, but it simply is preventing individuals from hindering the natural process and cycle of death."

This point is completely defeated by the observation that the very act of attempting to preserve someone's life through medical treatment goes against the "natural process and cycle of death" as well. Following Con's logic that we should allow things to take their "natural" course, we should also allow people who are dying of naturally-risen diseases to die, since that is what would happen "naturally". Con has no choice but to drop this point, as its implications contradict the rest of his case.

"Is intrusion, therefore, limiting the freedom (right) of the population? Perhaps. Does it become unconstitutional? No. Stare decisis remains here."

Some restrictions on our personal liberty are justified if they make significant contributions to the greater good (e.g. speed limits); however, Con has not even come close to showing that banning euthanasia would result in such a benefit, instead making contradictory moral arguments and fallacious appeals to authority.


In conclusion, all of Con's objections are refuted, and my constructive case for the legalization of euthanasia remains standing. The resolution is affirmed.

Debate Round No. 4
JonathanVN

Con

I would like to the Pro for the intriguing debate that has taken place here. I truly wish every debate could be this enjoyable. Whatever the result, you are a good debater and worthy of any opponents' respect.

R1) Right to death

First off, though, I have not ignored pro's logic in deciding whether or not there is a right to death. I simply replied by saying that it is not mentioned anywhere in legal document, whereas the right to life most certainly is. Though there is death in every person's life, that does not make it an equal right. Pro asserts that "Since my life is my own property, I am free to discard it, just as I am free to discard my own material property." This statement is false. Pro is comparing apples to oranges here. He is basically saying that life and material possession should be treated in the same manner. According to legal standards, this is not the case. Life is of the utmost importance, and it cannot simply be purposefully discarded. No place mentions a right to death; not one!

R2) Legality of Euthanasia

I am simply saying that someone (like you) could argue that it is promoting well-being. However, you would be false in arguing that. It is an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution, but still an interpretation nonetheless. I never said that it was the correct view, or a viable one at that.

R3) Declaration of Independence

Unfortunately pro seems very ignorant to legal workings and backbones of a governmental structure. The Declaration of Independence has a currently ambiguous status as to its legal authority. By claiming it has none, pro is making an erroneous and unwarranted assumption. At the very least, it is used for historical reference, which is what engendered the Constitution in the first place. The wording is very irrelevant in the point I was trying to make. The only difference in what was quoted and what is actually in the document is "pursuing" life. However, since we have these certain unalienable rights, it definitely means that we should be able to pursue. Pro seems slightly desperate to find an error here.

R4) United States Specifics

While pro is correct in that I based that argument around the United States, I was simply using that as an example to why Euthanasia could be legal here. It was implied that other countries also have similar laws against euthanasia, and thus in order for them to legalize it, stare decisis would have to be overturned. That is a difficult process.

R5) Natural Process of Death

Pro doesn't seem to understand that the majority of euthanasias are called for by people who have many more months (sometimes years) of life yet. Killing them by lethal injection is certainly hindering the natural process and cycle of death. Please note that I never implied anything about persevering their life. I do not necessarily believe that to be fine either. Therefore, pro's logical for this argument is flawed and built on erroneous assumptions yet again.

R6) Intrusion of Rights?

In order for this argument to be valid, pro must show these "contradictory moral arguments and fallacious appeals to authority" that I have been making. And, pro seems to be forgetting the many benefits that "banning euthanasia" does have. Granted, as I pointed out earlier, the word "banning" is not correct in this case, since it is not established globally to begin with.

In the end, every single one of pro's arguments and assertions have been refuted and accounted for.

Again, I want to thank pro for a great debate. However, I urge a con vote, because I have successfully stated why euthanasia should not be legalized and supported those arguments soundly.

Thank you.
UchihaMadara

Pro

Thanks to Con for his kind words! This was, indeed, a good debate, and I sincerely hope that Con continues to be an active contributor to DDO, given his exceptional debating skill :)

== AFF CASE ==

A1) Right to Death

Con insists that because no legal document advocates a right to death, we do not have a right to death. This ignores the crux of my argument, which is that we have a right to death *by extension* of our right to life. I have shown that having a right to life logically translates to a right to death, so by admitting this existence of the right to life, Con also concedes the existence of the right to death. The only time Con attempts to attack my actual justification for this is when he asserts that life cannot be regarded as property right. Firstly, drawing the analogy to property rights was not the central point of my justification; my main point was that living is a right, and with every right comes the right not to exercise it (i.e. die). And secondly, all Con really says to contest the notion of life being a property right is "life is of utmost importance", and that does not refute the analogy at all-- it simply indicates that life is the most important property right, which I readily accept.

A2) Constitutionality

Con asserts that any interpretation of the Constitution which supports euthanasia is incorrect, but he never supports this at all. I have shown a viable way for us to justify the right to death from the Constitutional right to life, and Con has not successfully shown my justification to be invalid. And let's not forget that the Constitution can't really be treated as an absolute authority on the matter, anyways, since the resolution is not specific to the United States.

A3) Declaration of Independence

Con corrects me by saying that the Declaration of Independence has ambiguous legal status; but this, too, is far from the amount of authority it would need to have to be used in the way that Con is using it (i.e. DoI says X, therefore we should accept X). And anyways, it is irrelevant because Con concedes that he got the wordings wrong. There is a significant difference between Con's misquote and the actual wordings of the DoI-- one obligates us to continue living, and the other affords us the right to death via the logic from my constructive. The DoI only specifies the latter.

A4) Supreme Court

Con shifts the focus of his argument, claiming that he meant to say something about how legalizing euthanasia with the laws already in place against it would be inconvenient. This argument is even less sound than the original! Inconvenience is not a reason for keeping outdated restrictions on rights... going through the process of freeing all the slaves after the Civil War was also inconvenient, but that didn't stop us. While keeping euthanasia banned is not as gross of a rights violation, it is the same concept nonetheless.

A5) Natural process of Death

Con simply dodges this rebuttal and repeats his original argument. My rebuttal still holds. If Con wants to claim that violating the 'natural process of death' is bad (thus making euthanasia bad), then he must also concede that using medicine to extend someone's life and effectively 'cheat death' is also bad, which is completely illogical because literally all of Con's case is based on the supposed sanctity of life.

== NEG CASE ==

Unfortunately, I forgot about this debate for a while, and as of now, I have 3 minutes to finish this debate. Needless to say, that is not nearly enough, and I will have to skip this portion. I would just like to end off by pointing out that Con has yet to refute my reasoning supporting our natural right to death, and he has not shown any substantial harms that come from allowing us to exercise that right.
The resolution is affirmed.
Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
RFD 2.
Palliative care argument. Would Euthanasia not qualify as palliative care? Anyway Pro points out that Con has not proved the benefits of palliative care as it can in fact be extending suffering. This is a critical point as euthanasia is in effect there to prevent suffering as Pro points out. As such Con needs to show that this is in fact true. The argument for money was a point that Con could have been hit on harder, and was a risky move by Pro in bringing it up in the initial argument. Very brave Pro, needless to say your defense was adequate to defeat the rebuttal and Con additionally did not help their argument when he pointed out that that patients are doing it to help loved ones i.e. using their right to life/death, see next section.

Right to life equals right to death. This is a very tricky argument which Pro presented well. However, personally I will be honest I am not sold on it completely as it seems like it still needs more work. However, Con provided no clear rebuttals (the only contention was life is not the same as death) and as such the argument goes to Pro. Sidebar: I will think about this some argument more, but in its current form I can't accept it and I wish I could give you more clarification now Pro but I need time.

Overall argument points go to Pro, well done.

BTW, I did not mention the human dignity argument (in my reason for awarding debate points) as I think it makes the arguments for Palliative Care and Right to Life/Death work, but on its own its more a philosophical argument with good points from both side.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Darn, I didn't get my vote in time even though I did finish my RFD. As such I will post it here and say well done Pro.

RFD 1.
First off, let me give my general view of the debate. I found it highly entertaining and thought both arguments presented by the debaters were interesting. At times, I did feel you both were talking past each other, but that happens in many debates and at the end questions posed by both sides were addressed. As such it had a few shaky parts, but overall it was a strong debate.

The Hippocratic argument was an interesting one, showing that this determination is subjective and not objective as Con claims. I thought Pro did a very job of dissecting this argument by pointing out that "No justification is provided for why this tenet of the Hippocratic Oath should be treated any differently than the ones which have 'transformed drastically'" . BTW, I was surprised that no one pointed out that some medical schools no longer even take the Hippocratic oath. Regarding, the legality of the Hippocratic oath as brought up by Con I don't buy it, you needed some serious references to prove this.

Regarding the slippery slope argument, that was outside the scope of the debate proposition. A such I will disregard it and Con can be lucky Pro even responded to this in the debate. However, Pro did clarify that they would only be arguing for euthanasia as defined "Please note that I am only arguing for euthanasia *with* the consent of the patient" and as such this argument by Con becomes moot.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
wtf why does this debate have five roundssssss
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
rfd coming soon my homiez
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
JonathanVN:

First, the priority of my administration has been unvoted debates. I actually DO try to vote on those asked of me. Recently, I had a period (as I noted in my weekly presidential update) where my time was limited--given that I'm assuming you looked at the most recent posts to my wall, that's probably what you were seeing. However, in general, any debate messaged to me that is voteless is gonna get a vote, barring some catastrophe on my part. If it has votes, I may or may not get to it--I'll try but won't promise it. Further, I most certainly CAN prove that I generally do this--both because it's common knowledge and because, if you REALLY think I'm lying, we can take this to the forums where I can be "vouched for".

Further, acknowledging your opponent's ability in no way acknowledges issues with your own performance--that's absurd.

As to your complaint about the flawed voting system--that's utterly and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, *unless* you're alleging that I voted for Pro solely because he messaged me. Given that you have said absolutely nothing about the substance of the vote, and given that the other vote (BoT) who voted voted essentially the same as me, I once again am inclined to think that you are frustrated that you did poorly, and are lashing out at perceived "flaws" in order to avoid taking responsibility for your own performance.

I will once again ask you to address the substance of my RFD (Or of BoT's, who I'm sure is happy to discuss his as well), rather than making unfounded, dishonest accusations.

It IS true that some people vote badly. Accusing me of doing so, without any evidence and without addressing the substance of my RFD, is accusing me of misconduct with no evidence. That is to say, it's insulting and dishonest.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
them = *it
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
Bladerunner isn't my "friend"... he's the site president, and I happened to find out that he likes to vote so I asked him to do so. There is nothing more to it. If you have a problem with the actual substance of his RFD, then I'm sure he'd be happy to address them, but these baseless accusations are really not accomplishing anything.
Posted by JonathanVN 2 years ago
JonathanVN
That's funny, bladerunner, because it seems like you very rarely actually vote on debates sent to you. I looked at your profile and the comments on it, and you seemingly ignore most people's requests. You have no proof to say that you would have voted the same way had I messaged you, because you would have most likely ignored it based on the other instances I have observed.

I never said I refused to acknowledge any flaws in my own performance; I admitted pro was a good debater. However, even you must admit that the voting system is indeed flawed. If I was on this site long enough, I could have messaged one of my friends and could be winning as of now. The fact is, it is impossible to monitor the validity and credibility of the voters.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
JonathanVN:

I have pledged to vote on any debate sent to me as part of my presidency on DDO. Accusing me of bias without actually addressing my RFD is not fair--nor is it intellectually honest. I would have voted, and voted the same way, had you messaged me.

Do you have anything to say about my reasoning? Otherwise, frankly, it comes across rather as you being a "sore loser", that is, refusing to acknowledge any possible flaws in your own performance and chalking the results up to an "unfairness" not actually present. Also, given that there's still time for other votes to be awarded, you're jumping the gun.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
I asked Blade to vote because he is known to be mostly unbiased and has pledged to vote on all debates presented to him. And he *has* provided substantial reasoning for his vote so you can't really dismiss it as biased without actually giving a specific objection to his RFD...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
JonathanVNUchihaMadaraTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: nulling my vote since sadly i wont have enough time to compile an rfd
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
JonathanVNUchihaMadaraTied
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: Conduct - Tie. Both had good conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Neither made any major spelling or grammatical errors. Sources - Tie. Both utilized sourcing throughout the debate and neither stood out as better. Augments - Pro. Con relied heavily on the status quo, arguing that is shouldn't be legal because of court rulings and Hippocratic oath. Unfortunately, if we always stuck with the status quo, there'd be no change. Pro effectively showed why this change should occur. Every rebuttal by Con fell short of defeating Pro's contentions. An instance of this can be seen with his lack of appropriate response to the 'right of death' as he never fully rebutted against it as it was and instead argued that there was no such thing. Another would be in response to Pro's accusation of Con's fallacies. Con asked for Pro to show where without realizing that Pro already had by addressing them specifically. There are several cases of this nature. For these reasons, Pro was able to affirm the resolution.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
JonathanVNUchihaMadaraTied
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: RFD in comments.