The Instigator
Lee001
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Hiramalexis
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Euthanasia Should be Legalized

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...
Lee001
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 965 times Debate No: 69061
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Lee001

Pro

I have challenged my friend HiramAlexis to debate this topic with me!

What is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia:
"1.The act or practice of ending the life of a person or animal having a terminal illness or a medical condition that causes suffering perceived as incompatible with an acceptable quality of life, as by lethal injection or the suspension of certain medical treatments. "

My main point of this argument is that, everyone has free will. We are human beings, therefore we have freedom to choose what we want, especially if it has to do with our life. No one should be able to tell us how to live or what we should do.

Here is point I'm making. Euthanasia is the easiest option for those patients who suffer from incurable diseases and where effective treatment is not even an option. The patient can be "put to sleep" if he or she so desires and sees no point in living until their last dying breath. In this case euthanasia is purely voluntary which only justifies the need for euthanasia.

Sources https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...=
Hiramalexis

Con

Thank you for engaging in this debate with me!

My position is that euthanasia should not be legalized in any form. I will provide (1) argument for my position in this debate.
*DISADVANTAGE TO VOTING FOR THE PROS PLAN*
"The role of the M.D."
-I. When a student of medicine finally graduates and earns a degree then proceeds to become licensed to practice, there are many things that are expected of them,choosing life or death for a patient as "treatment" is not one of them.
--a. The conflict here is that you put the power to remove life to people in society who already have too much "God Burden". The place(s) where euthanasia is currently legal are set up to allow it ONLY when approved by an M.D. This then causes the people that submit application for it, to fall in the hands of an M.D.
--b. What then happens is that they decide -NOT THE PATIENT-.
--c. Even if this becomes legalized the political parity that comes because of it among the medical world would make it an issue similar to Gay Marriage, where independent counties and states would go and sue and demand for it to be removed.
--d. Finally, the AMA would then be forced to not grant licenses to potential M.D.'s who would not -EVER- use this as a form of treatment. Thus causing a significant decline in the available M.D.'s practicing.

This point (including all sub-points) vastly outweigh the argument of "free will". This is where you can vote for con because in the status quo this Disad does not and will not exist.

-COUNTER PLAN-
In case my Disad does not fully sway you away from the Pros plan then I will argue this counter plan as a TEST ONLY.

counter plan: Legalize all suicide.
Debate Round No. 1
Lee001

Pro

Being terminally ill and wishing to put your self at peace is not suicide.

Terminal illness:Terminal illness is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient within a short period of time. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma. In popular use, it indicates a disease that eventually ends the life of the sufferer .http://en.wikipedia.org...

Con's point's aren't very clear. He's basically saying that M.D practicing is much more important than not letting a person suffer.

Here are some more points as to which it should be legalized.
"Doctors are the people responsible for treating a person"s disease. They are the one who combat death and improve the quality of health of a person. In particular times, doctors can"t do anything if a patient has a terminal disease but to wait for death to arrive. This moment can be very painful for the patient as well as his family and relatives. Euthanasia must be legalized and practiced in times that the patient requests for it to avoid economic burden. If it is not being practiced, it will result to increased suffering of the patient and violating his rights. " http://www.knowswhy.com...

Most of us fear death, but a large part of that fear comes from uncertainty and the worry that it might be preceded by agonizing pain (like a car wreck, say). If we knew exactly when we were going to die"and knew for a fact it would be painless"it"s a fair bet that fear would simply melt away. By allowing people to choose the how and when of their death, we"re guaranteeing they"ll live what remaining life they have to the fullest, free from the pain of anxiety. Don"t believe me? Well, here"s author Terry Pratchett saying pretty much the exact same thing. After being diagnosed with a rare form of Alzheimer"s, the Discworld writer became a campaigner for assisted dying. In his own words: "As I have said, I would like to die peacefully with Thomas Tallis on my iPod before the disease takes me over and I hope that will not be for quite some time to come, because if I knew that I could die at any time I wanted, then suddenly every day would be as precious as a million pounds. If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice."

The famous maxim "do no harm" is a summation of the Hippocratic Oath"an ancient code designed to guide doctors in their actions. Many people interpret this to mean "do nothing to harm the patient"s chances of survival." But, taken literally, it could just as easily mean "don"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable."

It all comes down to what we believe constitutes "harm." When a patient is in intense pain or suffering severe mental anguish, our society could be doing more harm by keeping them alive than allowing them to die. In extreme cases, such as those of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb above, it could be argued that any physician who didn"t alleviate their suffering when asked was violating the principles of their oath"and allowing both great harm and a great injustice to occur on their watch. At the end of the day, it"s up for us to decide whether we can sit back and watch people suffer, or choose to do something about it. Until we make up our minds, that suffering will continue.

No-one should force you to be in pain. They don't know how you feel or how agonizing it is to have a terminal illness. This definitely should be the patients choice, to continuing suffering, or to do as they wish, sleep peacefully.

Sources: The famous maxim "do no harm" is a summation of the Hippocratic Oath"an ancient code designed to guide doctors in their actions. Many people interpret this to mean "do nothing to harm the patient"s chances of survival." But, taken literally, it could just as easily mean "don"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable."

The famous maxim "do no harm" is a summation of the Hippocratic Oath"an ancient code designed to guide doctors in their actions. Many people interpret this to mean "do nothing to harm the patient"s chances of survival." But, taken literally, it could just as easily mean "don"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable."

It all comes down to what we believe constitutes "harm." When a patient is in intense pain or suffering severe mental anguish, our society could be doing more harm by keeping them alive than allowing them to die. In extreme cases, such as those of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb above, it could be argued that any physician who didn"t alleviate their suffering when asked was violating the principles of their oath"and allowing both great harm and a great injustice to occur on their watch. At the end of the day, it"s up for us to decide whether we can sit back and watch people suffer, or choose to do something about it. Until we make up our minds, that suffering will continue.

It all comes down to the patient, they have free will, they are able to make their own decisions , either to continuing suffering in agonizing pain, or sleep peacefully.

Sources: http://listverse.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.knowswhy.com...
Hiramalexis

Con

Just because Pro says that my points aren't clear does not make them unclear. My Disad is very clear, it is unique to the Pro's plan and has a chain of link and internal links that cannot be ignored or go unanswered much like they did. My entire Disad went unanswered, along with my counter plan.

Pro says, "Doctors are the people responsible for treating a persons disease. They are the one who combat death and improve the quality of health of a person. In particular times, doctors can"t do anything if a patient has a terminal disease but to wait for death to arrive. "

Pro says:"Doctors are the people responsible for treating a persons disease"
My argument is that if they are responsible for treatment then why are you imposing a plan that would kill people and call it treatment. By definition treatment is something that improves the condition thereof not terminates it. Couple this argument with pros own words of, "They are the one who combat death and improve the quality of health of a person". The emphasis here is COMBAT DEATH, not administer and provide it.

Pro says, "The famous maxim "do no harm" is a summation of the Hippocratic Oath"an ancient code designed to guide doctors in their actions. Many people interpret this to mean "do nothing to harm the patient"s chances of survival." But, taken literally, it could just as easily mean "don"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable."

My argument is that through this ideology of "do no harm" you can vote for my counter plan. Pro concedes the plan, there is no reason to not legalize all suicide and it does not link back to the Disad of M.D.'s. Why should people who the medical world label as "terminal" get more rights and control over their lives than someone who is not? Answer this argument and then you have a double-edged sword on why Euthanasia should NOT be legal. Couple this with pros argument that, "No-one should force you to be in pain. They don't know how you feel or how agonizing it is to have a terminal illness. This definitely should be the patients choice, to continuing suffering, or to do as they wish, sleep peacefully." EXACTLY why you vote for my counter plan because of the many instances like this.

In pro's first argument she spoke of "free will" and has now dropped it, I can use it with her argument closer, "It all comes down to the patient, they have free will, they are able to make their own decisions , either to continuing suffering in agonizing pain, or sleep peacefully." to say that for all these reasons you should vote for MY counter plan and make truly equal control over our lives.

***In closing it is important to remember why we debate and although there are many reasons, the main one is for education. We debate to become educated on many topics (many controversial) and we get to test through FIAT what the world would be like, today we have seen that the world the pro argues for causes more harm than good and because of this I strongly encourage a vote for the con, thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Lee001

Pro

Con: If you read my previous argument you would know what terminally meant. It means that you are sick for the rest of their life, there is no cure for it. How are doctors suppose treat a patient if there is not way to? How are these people suppose to "Combat death" like you said, if there is no cure? Do you think its better for them to be a vegetable for the rest of their life's, what would be the meaning of life then?
You also quote" They are the one who combat death and improve the quality of health of a person". Yet again my point is right, they canot combat a disease or ilness if it is terminal.
Euthanasia has already been legailzed in poor countries, and in the state of Orgeon.
Doctors have taken a oath, that your right on. "To better the lifes of the patients" so if they are terminally ill, doctors should let them suffer? let them lay there and watch their life pass away? Like I said before, people have a choice on this earth. nobody should force them to suffer, if the patient would rather go to sleep peacefully.
"The basic reason why euthanasia should be practiced is because it stops the person from having a bad quality of life. As I have said, a doctor’s function should not only be the one of curing diseases but also providing the patients a better quality of life. Having a patient suffering is not giving him a better quality of life. When doctors reach this point, then they should be allowed to grant the patient whatever he wants since he or she cannot offer something better. Even if they could offer the patient any kind of treatment or options, it is the patient who should decide how he wants to live his life. We pay the doctor so he can do the best he can. Helping us in having a better quality of life is about giving the patient what’s best for him as long as he wants it. The kind of quality of life is defined by the patient, not the doctor or government. Consequently, when the patient feels he is not getting the quality of life he wants, the least a doctor can do is grant him what he wants. If the patient’s decision is to die, so be it."
Now that I have turned down your "Reasonings" here are just a few more reasons why we should leagailize it.
1) Some rules are better than none: Since euthanasia will take place, even though it is illegal it would surely be better to make it legal and regulate it so as to minimize abuse instead of not having any rules at all. Patients might be better protected if there were set procedures and rules that had to be followed for euthanasia that are at present. A patient who feared that they were under pressure to decide in favour of euthanasia would be able to gain help and support by initiating the formal procedure involved in regulated euthanasia - something that they cannot do not.
2) Human beings have the right to die how and when they want to: Many people think that each person has the right to control is or her body and life and so should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die.
Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that innecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing.
And behind that lies the idea that human beings are independent biological entities with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesnt prohibit this. Allie to this is a firm belief that death is the end.
3) Euthanasia may be necessary for the fair distribution of health resources: This argument has not been put forward publicly or seriously by any goverment or health authority. It is included here for completeness.
In most countries there is a shortage of health resources.
As a result, some people who are ill and could be cured are not able to get speedy access to the facilities they need for the treatment.
At the same time health resources are being used on people who cannot be cured, and who, for their own reasons, would prefer not to continue living.
Allowing such people to commit euthanansia would not only let them have what they want, it would free valuable resources to treat people who want to live.
Abuse of this would be prevented by only allowing the person who wanted to die the intitiate the process and by regulations that rigorously prevented abuse.
For more info go to: http://www.bbc.co.uk......
Hiramalexis

Con

Hiramalexis forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Initially I glanced at six points for a single vote, and thought something might be wrong with it... Nope, this was a very overwhelming win, on multiple categories. If not for the RANDOM ALL CAPS, I might have considered giving S&G to con.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 1 year ago
miketheman1200
Lee001HiramalexisTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Lee001HiramalexisTied
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: First of all, disable Smartquotes in your word editor, DDO can't handle them (this wasn't enough of a distraction to cost S&G, but it's a good reminder.) Great quote from Terry Pratchett (my favorite source this debate), good summery of the case. Con's basic argument was a slippery slope fallacy, if legalized for people with incurable disease, what's to stop it from being legalized for everyone? Presented with it working fine in the State of Oregon, con decided to forfeit rather than address the point... While I'm on the fence regarding the issue, there is no doubt that pro won this debate by a large margin.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 1 year ago
mishapqueen
Lee001HiramalexisTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro laid out a convincing case and had excellent argumentation. Con was no slouch, but I didn't understand the counter plan, and he also forfeited. Pro backed up her points and was organized and clear, while Con had good points, they were unclear and confusing.