The Instigator
Bloodmoon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
darius22
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Euthanasia is Wrong in All Ways

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 792 times Debate No: 70169
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Bloodmoon

Pro

Many people may see Euthanasia as way to end suffering and pain of a loved one. But Euthanasia contains not only ethical and practical issues, but also historical and religious.

An appropriate example that voluntary Euthanasia is the first step that leads to involuntary Euthanasia can be found in the Netherlands. Alarming statistics indicates that in the past twenty years, in thousands of cases, decisions that were intended to end a competent patient's life were made without consulting the patient himself. Many patients are able to overcome their condition if given the time, although many are not given the choice whether they wish to live because their family or acquaintances somehow convinces the physicians to initiate Euthanasia. The rights of humans are being questioned and Euthanasia might not be in a persons best interests. If it was to be legalized in the USA it would in the worst case result that people will begin to accept that some lives are worth less then others, such as the mentally unstable or the disabled, even the poor.
Likewise, physicians in the USA can all acknowledge that Euthanasia is not the solution for people who are suffering from psychological disorder, there are many ways to ensure that those people will move on with their lives instead of ending it too soon. Practically speaking, Euthanasia is irrelevant if proper palliative care is ensured which is not hard to achieve, and legalizing Euthanasia will lead to less good care for the incurably ill.
By killing every person who decides, or is deemed, incurable, it will only discourage the search for new cures and medicine for the terminally sick, and it will cripple the motivation for good care for not only the dying and good pain relief for those who are in need, but it will also weaken the care for people who have just been diagnosed with a terminal disease. Said person has no option, or right, to be treated since Euthanasia will seem as the only true solution to the problem.
darius22

Con

First of all, while I agree with some of your points, particularly the one stating that there may be an accidental misjudgment on behalf of the patient whether the euthanasia goes ahead, that is not enough to completely criminalize it. If a patient has been living years in one bed in one room in one hospital, there is nothing that you could do to make him/her feel as though they have a bright future. Sure, you can wait for a cure but that will take a lot more time to be developed and then passed on to the general public, and if healthcare is very expensive it will be difficult to pay for in families of low income. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that it will work, it might just raise the hopes of the family and patient only to let them down further and slump deeper into depression. The miscommunication is an important factor of deeming it reliable, as it is possible for a family to opt for euthanasia against the will of the patient, and to that I have to say there needs to be a rigorous system in which the full intentions of both the patient and the family are understood. In cases where the patient cannot speak, it can be done by telling the patient to swirl their eyes around for a yes and to shut their eyes completely for a no. This is not ideal but it is needed to gauge a response from patients who cannot speak.
If a patient is deemed to be in a state of total paralysis and in a state where they are not happy about their future and current life, why make them suffer for longer than it needs to be. If it is completely clear that there is no possible way to cure them, they should have a choice in whether they want to live or not. We are not in the same position as them and should not judge their decisions as it would only affect their own life, not ours. We are not devaluing their lives, in fact we are giving them a choice and respecting it. Why should you have to suffer for years on end, only to grow old in that state and die after years of suffering, seeing your family crying everyday at your bed while you can never say a single word to them ever again. The mental pain that would create would drive anyone to seriously consider ending their life. Euthanasia is not meant to be a first choice quick decision. It is a calculated last resort to someone's life and if we're all going to die a t some point why make some people endure so much unavoidable suffering until they die suddenly, shocking friends and family. They should be able to have a dignified death and it gives them a chance to communicate last words or wishes to their loved ones and put an end to their suffering. Sorry for the long answer, I am supposed to debate this topic in my Spanish exam so I am just want to practice conveying my ideas in English before translating it later on.
Debate Round No. 1
Bloodmoon

Pro

Even if a person wishes to end their life, it would be ethincally awry to ask a doctor or nurse to administer the lethal injection. In many countries it is seen as a violation of elemental medical ethics and the sole purpose of being educated in medical studies, as all people in health care profession have chosen to help find new medical ways to save human life. In 2002, 3299 U.S. cancer doctors were questioned of their opinion and willingness to perform Euthanasia on patients. The organisation performing the exermination were the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The results shows that among the doctors, only 6,5 percent supported Euthanasia, and 25 percent supported physician-assisted suicide. The organisation made similar research ten years previously, and compared to the data obtained back then, there has been a decrease from 22.7 percent percent in support to 6,5. Many doctors had the oppinion that by using Euthanasia, they would be no better then any other killer.

By accepting Euthanasia, there will be no meaning in trying to actually save anybody because we simply decide to kill the patients since it will appear as the easiest way out the pain. In the future, one of the major issues will be the lose of faith in human life. Humans should not interfere with life and has, by religious means, no right to end it.
darius22

Con

I understand that in some religions and countries it is prohibited to end your life, but it is better to give people a choice so that if it is legal, and the patient wants to go through with it, it can happen. I think that regular day-to-day doctors and nurses should not be a part of the euthanasia process, due to what you mentioned about feeling like a killer due to guilt. Euthanasia should only be done by either very high level experienced doctors or a vetted third party professional who will have more control on how they are affected by the process than normal doctors/nurses. I agree with the fact that most doctors/nurses are against the notion of euthanasia, but at the end of the day it is 100% the patient's decision and the doctor should not be having the final word. Doctors cannot force anything upon the patient, for example a patient can reject cancer treatment and doctors have to respect their choice; euthanasia is no different in this context as it is up to the patient and if the doctor cannot accept it another more experienced professional should take over. Medicine is an ever-changing discipline and new medicine is always being developed, tested and implemented in hospitals all over the world. The human spirit will not be dampened as euthanasia is not a cure, just a way of humanely ending suffering. Perhaps within the near future euthanasia will hopefully not be needed at all due to having cures to major illnesses like cancer and HIV ready and available to give to patients, but for now whilst there are people who are nowhere near cured and have little or nothing to live for euthanasia is possible for a worst-case scenario to end their pain. Furthermore, where would we be if humans were not allowed to interfere with life? Medicine would never be developed and defibrillators would not be allowed to be used as we are interfering with human life. Why are dogs allowed to be put down humanely whilst humans do not have such a dignified way to pass away; do dogs have more rights than humans?
Debate Round No. 2
Bloodmoon

Pro

Animals of course have rights too, but in the world we live in today, people are more likely to worry about humans then animals, sadly. Some may say that animals are able to make decisions about whether they wish to die. For certain species, if an individual is badly injured, the animal in most cases chooses to leave the flock and die more quikcly by avoiding eating.

For humans it is not black and white. We all experience the difficulty of make a choice, especially in a young age. An already overburdened patient who are not yet old enough to even consider ending their own life. Children and young people, even those who are suffering from an illness, have so much hope and faith in the doctors and in the people around them, that they cannot handel the idea of dying already. It is a huge psychological burden. If someone were asked to choose regarding Euhanasia it would conflict with said person"s self-preservation and put major pressure on someone so young. Many countries are discussing that if they allow Euthanasia, an age limitation must be in place to insure that the number of youths who apply for help to die will not increase in the folowing years.
No one can guarantee you that death is the best solution since we cannot ask patients who have chosen to die. A child, or teenager, finds no real assurance from physicians or anyone around them when faced with the choice of life or death. Of course parents have the authority to make decisions on the behalf of their children. But is it really all right for a mother and a father to allow the doctor to give their a child a lethal injection, when the child is not even old enough to understand, or lacks the knowledge of what is about to happen? Making children go through the choice of Euthanasia, or even as far as being killed without consulting with their parents, are not acceptable.
It is completely fine with those long answers since I am a student too and am supposed to discuss this.
darius22

Con

I strongly agree with there being an age limit on euthanasia due to children finding it more traumatizing and difficult in making such a controversial decision, and euthanasia should only be permitted for somebody over the age of 18. That being said, after that age the patient has complete control over their decision to end their life and it is justifiable for an adult to make their own calculated decision. Furthermore, whilst I agree there is a psychological issue of contemplating your own death, I would assume the physical and mental pain from being in the condition they are in outweighs the psychological pain of choosing to die or not. Even if they choose to prolong their life, the inevitable thought will always be at the back of their mind and they will never be able to escape it, so there may be many times when the patient is close to choosing to go through with the process of euthanasia, which leads to even more psychological disorders. The worst part is that the patient will often find it extremely hard to describe these thoughts due to a lack of in-depth communication if they cannot speak, and these conditions can be developed by the family as well. We cannot ask patients if euthanasia was a better solution to living due to the obvious fact that we cannot talk to the deceased, however at the point in their life when they chose it they had two options: 1. To continue living and 2. To opt for euthanasia. For a completely conscious adult to choose the second option they will have known that there is no coming back after it is done, so there must have been stronger reasons for that person, and to a lesser extent their family and friends, to choose option 2 to end their life.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
I was young and in Asia once. I'm not now. I have friends who were born in Asia, and don't live there now. Youthinasia is a temporary status.
Posted by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
I don't think there's anything wrong with the youth in Asia that isn't wrong with the youth everywhere else.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
Sure sounds like you are pro for this.
No votes have been placed for this debate.