The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

Euthanasia: Should the right to die be granted?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 9/3/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,054 times Debate No: 25431
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I reckon there have been many debates about this topic. So it should be easier to get free arguments.
1) Semantics allowed
2) Pro advocates euthanasia should be granted, Con stand against granting
3) 5 rounds
1. Introduction/confirmation
2. each debater presents his arguments
3. rebuttals
4. rebuttals
5. ending
4)72 hours time to argue
5) 8000 characters
6)Winner is determined by quality, development, forming of arguments; semantics etc.

Good luck and I am looking forward to thrilling debate


I accept and look forward to an extremely interesting debate.

I'd like to thank my opponent for devil's advocating this debate for my sake.

I await his opening argument...
Debate Round No. 1



At the beginning, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting. I wanted to be Pro but purpose why I debate here is to obtain some experience in English language. I will endeavour to not give any chance for my opponent.

I'll start with defining term "Euthanasia" to ward off any semantics.

Wikipedia says:
(Euthanasia) refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.

I hope I've defined the term correctly and now we can move on my arguments:

1.) There is always a hope
It sounds weird but every time even in our darkest hours we have still some hope and there is some possibility for recovery. Many patients are kept in coma without any chance to recovery. However, medicine is still developing and as times go on and on we can reach point where those patients depending on machines will get therapy enough to cure them. In general, people shouldn't give up their life by no means despite gloomy insoluble situations.

2.) Doctors swear a oath
Before a student of medicine become a physician, he swears a Hippocratic oath[1]. They are swearing "to practice medicine ethically and honestly". In case, you are curious what exactly this oath includes, I refer you to wikipedia or other sites which you can Google. This oath confronts problem of Euthanasia. As I said at the beginning, "Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering". Despite there are words like relieving from suffering, it's deliberate action. And doctors sworn against doing this. Hence, it's action which are they not obliged to do. From that we can deduce that doctors are here to enhance level of health care and to give hopes to people suffering serious illnesses.

3.) Unconsciousness
The most grieving cases of health problems are people who are utterly cut off reality. They are in coma and can't communicate with world by no way. The Relatives are those who decide to go under Euthanasia. Therefore there is no opportunity for patients to express their opinions on that case. This leaves doubts on this case. Do they really want to die? Or do they want to strive for every chance offered? This interventions are being done without permission of patients thus Euthanasia shouldn't be allowed.

4.) It does not guarantee a "good death"
Some researches in Holland showed that "approximately 10% of the former and 30% of the latter forms of attempted ?mercy killings' investigated by the authors were complicated by untoward problems"[2]. The author of mentioned source goes on about symptoms that they vomit and fits. This gives more complications and it includes risks and nice and smooth progress for patients. In the end, they might rather prefer to stay in "unknown world".

5.) Euthanasia restrain further development of health care
As wars showed us, killing people is much easier than upbringing of children, than nursing people. Euthanasia is another step toward death. This shouldn't be conceded. Euthanasia reduce potential interest in donating into this field of health care. Keeping people alive on machines require money for nurses and machine maintenance. Is it expensive deal to keep people alive, and is understandable that people want to spare money. On the other hand, science is still going forward and forward and once people will be able to solve this problem. It is matter of money and once Euthanasia is granted, there won't be any interest into donating into it because case is solved.

I've written down all my arguments which came to my mind. Euthanasia is really hard question and it is hard to determinate whether to kill or struggle for one's life. I stand for keeping them alive. I hope there will be some cure which will move Euthanasia away and safe and improve life of many people waiting and hoping for normal life.



Thank you Con for leaving religion out of the debate, I hope it stays that way.

>> Rebuttals <<

1) Con's initial point can be summarised as miracle cures are possible and therefore killing yourself is hasty. This is obviously a fair comment but if we really consider the likelihood of this happening in the very short remainder of the patients life then it is essentially redundant. The most commonly accepted definition of “terminal” when used in the context of an illness is six months (1), however doctors usually overestimate the time a patient has left (2) so really a figure like four months would be more accurate. Now let's consider miracle cures, and I mean real miracles cures, as they would have to be to push the disease back from a terminal level. I think we can both agree that such cures appearing on the market are astronomically rare, then apply the chances of such a cure appearing in the last few months of a patients life and being readily available to him. A hope of such an occurrence really is a little far-fetched, but still, I'm sure it is possible and I accept that it may be a reason for a patient to choose holding out until the very end. This is fine as it is their choice, but it would be incredibly unfair to restrict absolutely everyone from euthanasia simply because a few wish to hold out on an event that has only a minuscule chance of happening. This is an argument that may be valid to someone who's considering euthanasia but it certainly is not an argument adequate for making the entire process illegal.

2) Con's second point is that euthanasia is a violation of the Hippocratic oath of the doctor who performs it. The part he is referring to, “do no harm,” has a very subjective meaning. For example, does “do no harm” literally mean do not hurt somebody? Doctors perform many operations which technically “do harm,” any form of surgery involves cutting the skin, inserting objects, stitching the patient back etc. If a doctor did these things when the patient was awake and not under anaesthetic, he would've caused the patient intense pain. But the definition of harm obviously doesn't extend to things which are done for the greater good of the patient. This example of doing something for the greater good can similarly be applied to euthanasia when the patient is under intense pain and putting him out of this pain certainly couldn't be filed under “harm.” In fact, in such hopeless circumstances it could be argued that harm is being done by passively watching someone suffer. I won't argue for this perspective but you can see what I mean.

3) Con argues that some may not know what they're doing when euthanasia is applied or may be in a coma. This is a fairly common and easily refutable argument. Locations which allow euthanasia always have laws in place, which only when met, may euthanasia be granted. An example of this is the state of Oregon in the US:

  • Patient must be resident in Oregon.

  • Patient must be aged over 18.

  • Patient must make 2 oral and 1 written request for euthanasia.

  • There must be at least 15 days between the first and the last request.

  • Patient must be terminally ill with a life expectancy of less than 6 months

  • This prognosis must be confirmed by a second consultant physician

  • Both doctors must confirm that the patient is capable of making this decision

  • Both doctors must confirm that the patient does not have medical condition that impairs their judgement

  • Patient must self-administer the lethal medication (3)

Such laws are put in place precisely to prevent unaware people from entering into euthanasia. Pulling the plug on a coma patient is an irrelevant subject for another debate as a coma patient could never meet the rules associated with euthanasia, such as those above.

4) These statistics are unsurprising, there will always be unforeseen problems which will arise but this is certainly not grounds for making euthanasia illegal. Patients undergo euthanasia to relieve themselves of intense pain and if they encounter a little discomfort on the way then it would surely be a fair trade off. People may experience side effects from surgery but it's seen as a small price to pay in comparison, the same logic works with euthanasia. A responsible adult will give their consent to something which may have minor side effects according to their own judgement, if the risk of vomiting is too much then they will not agree to euthanasia.

5) I don't really understand Con's bizarre point here. I'm going to leave it and hopefully he can present it a little more clearly next round.

>> My Case <<

1) People Have a Right To Die

Everyone has a right to do with their body what they wish, it is your body and therefore it should be your prerogative. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes how “Everyone has the right to life (4),” dying is of course an inescapable and inevitable part of life as it happens to everybody. People have to go through it whether they like it or not so surely they have a right to go through it their way. People lengthen their lives in order to have an enjoyable future, why shouldn't people be able to shorten theirs to avoid a painful future, they should be able to die when they wish to die in the way they want to die. It is legal to commit conventional suicide and the only difference between that and euthanasia is that euthanasia helps the patient to die in a pleasant and dignified way, with as little pain as possible.

2) Death Isn't Necessarily A Bad Thing

Many people make a comparison between death and the time before you were born, the time before you were born doesn't scare you so why should death? The primary reason people do not want to die is so they can continue living their lives and having experiences. Terminally ill patients are dying anyway and all you'd be doing is speeding up an inevitable process to lessen pain. If the patient wants this then who has the right to deny him it? It is his life to lose after all.






Debate Round No. 2


I am happy I didn't put religion into this. I hope I won't break it. Thing, I want to point out is that Con didn't follow rules. Rule 3) says that debaters bring own arguments. However, I will react on both his rebuttals and his arguments.

My case

1)I disagree I stated that there is any miracle cure which prevents from euthanasia. I said, "medicine is still developing and as times go on and on we can reach point where those patients depending on machines will get therapy". That means in far or early future there is possibility for recovery. Nevertheless, I believe there will be some cure to avoid this infinite deadlock of patients. Logically, we can infer that granting Euthanasia is temporary action. As we both agreed on that holding out Euthanasia until the very end. I understand "very end" as death. Then we both agreed on not granting Euthanasia on the point that cure will be invented in future and Euthanasia is just temporary action. As for the last sentence, making it granted depends mainly on the needs of patients and that's the reason for making it either illegal or legal.

2)I agree that Hippocratic oath includes "do not harm" but my opponent skipped, intentionally, the most important passage "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked,". And this is undoubtedly the most important part of this oath in terms of Euthanasia. Physicians thus can't take any part in euthanasia process - they couldn't carry this out. Since facility and personnel belongs to hospital, it is impossible to do it here.

3)I have to say that this argument surprised me. But if they allowed it in the Netherlands and in Oregon it doesn't certainly means that it should be allowed in general. I must point out few things which includes source which Pro provided. I will bring each point and put some commentary to that, "One survey showed that 45% of patients who were given good palliative care changed their mind about euthanasia". Palliative cure is alternative for patients. In general, 45% is high number and it certainly proves that despite patients decide to go under euthanasia they still have doubts. Another point, "Another reason for the low take-up was the difficulty of finding a doctor who go along with the request: The Oregon Health Division reported that only a fifth of physicians of control patients dying of similar terminal illnesses would have prescribed a lethal medication if asked". This statement actually follows my argument number 2 that many Physicians decide not to breach "Hyppocratic oath". And this still proves that Physicians stand against Euthanasia.

4) There is big difference between "classical" surgery and Euthanasia. Euthanasia doesn't mean to heal oneself. Patients undergo surgery's to get rid of some diseases but in terms of euthanasia patients don't intend to aggravate their health. I am sure they all know that going to die is not nice choice as I brought above. Many patients changed their mind after they had been given palliative care. And they don't anticipate any painful death.

5)The thing which I want to point out is that Euthanasia brings particular condition under patient is into field of indifference toward donating money into cure [1]. It reduce potential funds into palliative cure. I hope it is more clear. In general, Euthanasia simply diminish amount of many giving into cure because simply the problem is solved.

Opponent case:
1)Yes, you are right that everybody has their right to do with they body whatever they want. But nobody can help them to death, neither Physicians. None can provide them pills to die, then it is breach of law. The article which Pro mentioned says only "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."[2]. There is nothing mentioned about killing themselves. I'll refer what says Netherlands' law about Euthanasia:
"(Euthanasia's) termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient"[3]. And because none can help somebody to die. It is breaking a law to help somebody to die.

2) Pro gets deeper into Philosophy. First of all, how could somebody be scared of birth when birth is first thing they experienced before they could even talk. Everyone is scared of death in many ways. Because of the pain they experience when they die, because they won't longer meet their relatives and so on. The reason why not to do I presented above - because there is hope and also because none can help them to death. I am sure nobody wants to speed up being death, everyone wants to live forever. Even now there are some cures how to avoid pain like palliative care or painkillers.



I apologise if my first post was a little rushed, I had a lot of school work to do.

>> Rebuttals <<

  1. Once again I'm a little befuddled by Con's decidedly opaque argument, however, I will try my best to respond. I actually never said that there was going to be a miracle cure which prevents euthanasia and I'm a little miffed as to what that could even mean. I was addressing the idea of a sudden miracle cure to the disease the patient is suffering which could've saved the patients life if he'd not opted out. I feel that I comfortably rebutted such a point by concluding that the odds of such an occurrence are astronomically small and that, in the end the risk is the patient's prerogative. At one point you describe euthanasia as “temporary action” as though it's some kind of stopgap until all terminal diseases are cured, I personally can't imagine that ever happening but if it did then there would be no need for euthanasia so I don't see what point you are trying to illustrate. I'm sure debating in another language is very difficult and I commend you on it, but can you please read over your arguments before you post them to ensure their coherence. Still Rebutted

  2. This argument on the basis of the Hippocratic oath is innately weak due to the fact that medicine, ethics and society inevitably changes, as does the medical community itself. The ancient Hippocratic oath which you quoted is extremely archaic and outdated. It is more of a foundation on which modern medical morality was built rather than a set of laws to directly observe. This can be seen simply from reading it, for example it begins “I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses.” (1) No modern physician believes in these ancient Greek Gods or would take such a pledge seriously, giving the document any credibility as a rigid law for a doctor to live by is ridiculous. Other passages directly contradict modern medical practice such as “I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy,” (1) almost all of the Western world allow abortions and therefore do not take the Hippocratic oath word for word. It is more of a tradition and a historical document from which a portion of medical morality was derived. Rebutted

  3. Con begins his argument with the weak line of defence that “just because there are rules in some countries, it doesn't mean there will be in general.” This is an extremely flawed line of reasoning, I provided the Oregon euthanasia regulations as an example of how things such as the patient's ability to make a reasoned decision can be accounted for. Obviously a competent democratic country with a peer-assessing parliament is going to impose the same kind of rules and would be heavily criticised if they did not.

    You then argue that palliative care is a good alternative to euthanasia and that many euthanasia patients have changed their mind, opting for that instead of euthanasia. I completely agree that palliative care is a great alternative and I don't see how the presence of it affects euthanasia. Most go for palliative care, as I would, but then a few go for euthanasia. There is no conflict between the two, as the choice is completely down to the patient. As for patients who change their mind, that is fine too, changes of mind are encouraged up to the very last moments in euthanasia and they have immeasurable opportunities.

    Your final point is that only a fifth of physicians are willing to help a patient go through with euthanasia. That is a sad fact and I hope it changes but it certainly is not grounds to change the legality of euthanasia. There are very few doctors who wish to perform late-term abortions, yet the legal stance on these abortions remain the same. Also, whether or not this shows the personal opinions of doctors is irrelevant, physicians are not the world's compass on morality. Different sources say different things about the topic anyway, in the UK one in three doctors support euthanasia. (2) Rebutted

  4. The connection I made between euthanasia and surgery is that in both cases a patient is undergoing a process in which they may encounter minor pain but it is better for them in the long run. Very few medical procedures are entirely painless and euthanasia is no exception, if a patient consents then he is agreeing to this. The vomiting which you gave as an example of is very minor and in comparison to the crippling pain of terminal cancer it is no competition. If you make this case against euthanasia then you'd have to also make it against many mainstream medical procedures such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Rebutted

  5. Ah, I understand. Well obviously the majority of people are not going to go for euthanasia, and as your statistic showed, 45% will change their mind as they are in the process of pursuing euthanasia. This shows that the vast majority of terminally ill patients will stay in palliative care, with only a small percentage opting for euthanasia, so why would this affect palliative care funding?

    The death of a close relative is always going to be seen as a horrific experience, whether it was intentional or not, premature death has never been seen as a problem solved in the past so why would it now, simply because it's intentional. Rebutted

>> My Case <<

  1. Okay, first of all I'd like to plainly point out that due to the fact that the Netherlands allow euthanasia, it is not a breach of law for a doctor to assist suicide if it meets the right circumstances. An argument that euthanasia is a breach of law is ridiculous because what I'm arguing for is the legalisation of euthanasia, obviously it's not legal everywhere otherwise there'd be no debate!

    If you'd read my post more thoroughly you'd have seen my argument in regards to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I will repeat it again. Dying is a natural part of absolutely everyone's life, you live and then you die with absolutely no exceptions. Therefore death and life are interchangeable, you can't have one without the other. Human Rights give us the right to life, and liberty within that life, therefore they also give us the right to our own death (as we want it) and liberty within the dying portion of our lives.

  2. I didn't mean fear of birth. What I meant was that you do not remember the time before you were born because it was eternal nothingness, death will be the same, you won't know it has happened and you won't have the mental capability to be afraid. I can see why many would see this as a relief from a miserable, hopeless life full of pain.

    You then go on to make a completely baseless assertion that “everybody is scared of death” and “everybody wants to live forever.” I can't think of anything more horrific than living forever personally but that doesn't matter, because this argument is at best irrelevant and at worst wrong. Dying is someone's personal choice, who are you to tell them they don't want to die. If palliative care and painkillers were enough then I doubt euthanasia would be an issue, anyway it's not only physical pain but also mental and emotional pain. The incapability of being able to move a single muscle in your body if you have Motor Neurone Syndrome or seeing yourself waste away to a delirious, skeletal human being if you have cancer. People have a right to their own choices and a dignified death is one of them.

As I said in the comments, I'm sorry for breaking the rules slightly by rebutting last round. It certainly was not intentional.




Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for answering and keeping this debate still active. It's pleasure for me to debate with him.

My case:

1. For this case, we don't understand each other. I reacted on Pro's assertion, "miracle cures are possible and therefore killing yourself is hasty". I haven't stated this utterance in my first argument. Main point I wanted to imply was that there is no reason to execute Euthanasia because there is always minuscule chance to get proper cure or there are alternative (palliative, in particular) cures which can help patients. I highly disagree that you rebutted this argument by stating that possibility of developing a cure is small, it depend on type of disease patient suffer. The way, Pro approach to this case is not objective. Saying that you can't imagine something happening is your view on this point. As times go on, many diseases will be less dangerous as they are now. On the beginning of 20th century none knew about Penicillin until Alexander Fleming came with it. This step changed a medicine completely. There is nothing impeding future development of curing people with terminal diseases. Since there is development of cures against terminal diseases, so certainly there will be medicine for each disease or process which will diminish the pain. Thus there will be no need to execute Euthanasia. In case there won't be any any need for Euthanasia, there is no need to sanction it now.

2. Every new government, every president gives a Oath as well as doctors do. It's not law, of course. This is moral problem; if you promise something, you usually try to keep it. If it was breached, why would this oath be given? That's the first point. Regarding your extract from the beginning of this oath "I swear by Appollo..."[1], none doubts there will be something else, when it is called "Hippocratic oath". So this argument is completely invalid. It doesn't have any influence on the oath. Considering the second extract "I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy"[1], it's true that abortions are allowed but they are restricted by many criteria. In general, abortion can't be carried out after 24 weeks of pregnancy or 2 doctors must agree that it is safe for the mother. After 24 weeks of pregnancy the abortion can be carried out only if under certain circumstances such as: "if it is necessary to save the woman's life" or "to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman"[2], thus it can't be compare to Euthanasia because it prevents from potential problems.

3. Pro starts with completely erroneous argument. Pro brought incorrect arguments. Oregon doesn't allow Euthanasia - it's called assisted suicide[3], [4]: "It differs to euthanasia where another person ends the life". Only countries which allowed Euthanasia are: The Netherlands, Belgium. Thus arguing that you "provided the Oregon euthanasia regulations" is pointless because Oregon hasn't allowed Euthanasia, it's called "assisted suicide.

For the rest of the arguments I am glad that we came to agreement. I am happy that Pro agrees on the point that Palliative care is better than Euthanasia. I hope it will develop and someday patients won't need to just consider the Euthanasia as the option. However there is still possibility to choose for euthanasia but only in Belgium and in Holland.

I approve that it's said that physicians have to under such as sorrowful action such as abortion and Euthanasia. However, abortion is allowed because of the potential problems when it comes to birth. Euthanasia, on the other hand, doesn't hide any detrimental problems for anyone, just for the patient. It's true, that abortion is included into Hippocratic oath but it's limited by the age of pregnancy.

4. I am going to maintain on my first argument. Euthanasia doesn't actually "relieve" from pain. Chemotherapy or radiotherapy promise a solution of problem. People undergo this process to get rid of crucial illness like cancer is. Many times the process of Euthanasia hurts more than the process of waiting for death. That's the reason why it shouldn't be granted because the process may have unpredictable results which cause might cause more pain than waiting for death.

5. I am talking about the palliative care and cure for terminal diseases as general. It's logical, that if 45% people decided for Euthanasia change their mind to go back to palliative care then is correct that money goes there. For the argument of premature death. It is always considered as problem. Hence there are money going into researches, new medical cures still developing and so on. Premature problems are bad and everyone deserves to live long and productive life.

Pro's case:

1. I agree and approve that it is not breach of law to assist suicide in certain countries (Netherlands, Luxembourg, Albania etc.). However, in other countries it's even illegal! I'll cite wikipedia[5]: "In many jurisdictions it is a crime to assist others, directly or indirectly, in taking their own lives. In some jurisdictions, it is also illegal to encourage them to do so. Sometimes an exception applies for physician assisted suicide (PAS), under strict conditions." Therefore, even physicians could be judged because they allowed someone to commit suicide. If patient wishes to commit suicide, physician is obliged to not allow it because law says even indirect assist. Only exception applies on countries where assisted suicide is allowed. We can infer, that if you want to apply your right to commit suicide, physicians can't take part in any action including this. From this reason Euthanasia as process involving physicians, can't be allowed.

2. As I said, we don't know what is life beyond. Personally, I think there is nothing - simply nothing; no emotions, no feelings. Thus dying is like ending in something where you doesn't feel anything, where you can find the rest from pain. But from this view of point we can't find anything to debate. It's not proved. Usually people don't want to die due to pain but because of the painkillers they have to take every day. This problem is controversial because we don't know what will happen after death. Will you born again? Then yes, I would agree to grant Euthanasia. However, there is nothing proved. It's question and hence Pro's argument is based on bad evidence.

You don't need to sorry for breaking the rules. Just we need to argument a little more and to work little more. If you didn't that, we would had more space for arguments in round 5, that's all:).

Good luck!



>> Rebuttals <<

  1. First of all, the assertion I made was simply a summary of your first point, which I still believe to be accurate.

    Con states that there is no reason to commit to euthanasia because there's always a minuscule chance of a miracle cure. What he seems to be forgetting here is that you don't 'commit' to euthanasia in some contractual sense, you're allowed to pull out up until the very last seconds. So even if this incredible miracle cure came out on the day you were about to undergo euthanasia, you'd still be able to get the treatment. In fact, I'm quite sure that you would not be allowed to pursue euthanasia if there is a new cure out, or about to come out because your situation would no longer be hopeless. Remember, doctors “must be convinced that there is no other reasonable solution.” (1) Therefore I conclude that there is no conflict between miracle cures and euthanasia.

  2. I think Con has completely misunderstood my previous post. Con begins by asking why an oath would be given if it was not meant to be upheld. My answer to that would be that it is a kind of rite of passage, a traditional ritual to be held when a medical student finally becomes a doctor. (2) It is not a serious pledge which must be followed word for word. Evidence of the fact that it is not intended seriously are the two quotes I gave you from it previously, which remain unrefuted.

    The first, which regarded a promise to the ancient Greek Gods was a way of demonstrating that the document holds no real oath-value and is instead simply a traditional ritual. If the document was intended to be a serious oath then it wouldn't be sworn based on a belief which no doctors hold.

    Secondly you state that abortions and euthanasia are not similar because after 24 weeks abortions are performed only to save the mothers life. What you neglected to mention was the fact that before 24 weeks abortions are performed on the mothers whim! She can terminate her pregnancy for whatever reason she likes because it is up to her. “Most countries in the European Union allow abortion on demand during the first trimester.“ (3) Therefore, these kinds of abortions are not restricted by criteria and are a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath is not taken seriously on matters of abortion, so why should it on matters of euthanasia...

  3. Con begins his argument here extremely weakly, he seizes on an irrelevant piece of semantics which he asserts is wrong and then rules that my whole argument is faulty because of it. Allow me to elaborate, Con states that because Oregon is a state which allows “assisted suicide” and not euthanasia, then its regulations are somehow not relatable. This argument is about whether or not a state has regulations so a person can't accidentally sign up to euthanasia or be given it when they are unconscious, whether it is euthanasia or assisted suicide is completely irrelevant. Even if it was somehow relevant, which it's not, then the same argument can be given for the Netherlands, which has the same kind of regulations and actually is euthanasia. (4)

    Con gives no rebuttal to my point that euthanasia and palliative care don't conflict so the point goes to Pro.

    Pro reasserts the fallacious idea that because abortion is limited then it is not restricted by the Hippocratic Oath. Euthanasia is limited too, to only terminal illnesses of less than six months, so what? The Hippocratic Oath says I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy, it doesn't say “I will not give a woman an abortive remedy, unless they are less than 24 weeks pregnant.” Therefore this argument is ridiculous. And let me just state for the record, an abortion before 24 weeks is not to save a woman's life but on her personal whim!

  4. Con makes the flawed argument that euthanasia is not a process undergone to relieve pain, which is exactly what it is. People who are in terminal pain and wish for their death as a way of ending it undergo euthanasia. Con then makes the completely baseless and absurd assertion that “many times the process of Euthanasia hurts more than the process of waiting for death.” He has provided no source for this assertion. The only possible evidence I can find is what he provided in round two which described “untoward problems” which occasionally occurred during euthanasia such as “vomits and fits.” Now imagine that you are a terminally ill patient in such unbearable pain that you actually wish to end your own life. Could you reasonably say that trivial inconveniences such as vomiting or a fit is comparable to this kind of suicidal pain? Such a comparison is obviously ridiculous.

  5. It seems I have adequately demonstrated that euthanasia will not hold back other forms of health care such as palliative care, which will still receive funding. Since you did not attempt to rebut this point, I'll assume you have conceded it. Point goes to Pro.

>> My Case <<

  1. Con once again repeats an argument I rebutted and pointed out the ridiculous nature of last round. He argues that euthanasia is illegal in some countries therefore it is wrong. If it was legal in every country then there would be no debate because its legality is exactly what I'm arguing for! This is clearly a flawed form of argument and a huge non-sequitur, its illegality in certain countries does not condemn it morally.

  2. Con argues that because we do not know what happens after death my argument that death is not that bad is based on poor reasoning. Seeing as we're keeping religion out of this debate can we not assume that after we die there is nothing? Surely nothing is better than a hopeless existence full of pain. Above that, surely it is the patients own choice whether he takes the perceived risk of dying prematurely and facing whatever there is after death. But all of that aside, the patient is terminally ill and will die very soon anyway, so what does it matter if he encounters death a little early if it helps to relieve him from pain. Who are you to deny him this privilege...

    As per the rules, there will be no new arguments next round.






Debate Round No. 4


I heartily thank my opponent for this exciting debate. He was undoubtedly better English and expressing. His arguments were coherent and hard to rebut.
Firstly, I choose this debate just to exercise my English. So I didn't care about position whether to be con or pro. However,I identified with Pro because I think Euthanasia should be allowed (I hope this text is beyond judging xD). Thus being Pro seemed to me easier. But on the other hand Con is more exciting of course:).
Thank you very much and see you:).


Ahh well thank you too Con, I enjoyed the debate.
Also, thanks for devils advocating for me, and good luck in all future endeavours.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
That arrow format looks cool
Posted by Bublifuk 5 years ago
Oh, you don't need to apologize. It's ok, it's for fun. I just wanted to point out rules. To keep it in order.
Posted by alex1094 5 years ago
Sorry, I didn't realise that I wasn't allowed to rebut in the second round. Many apologies.
Posted by Bublifuk 5 years ago
Ok, I've changed settings. Now you can take up your opportunity.
Posted by alex1094 5 years ago
I'd love to argue this as Pro, shame...
Posted by RationalMadman 5 years ago
I agree with pro on this one.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con essentially forfeited this debate. He admited that his arguments, sources, and grammar was not the best. However, for conceding graciously I am giving him a conduct point. Good debate both of you!