The Instigator
Letsdebate24
Pro (for)
The Contender
ScotieRainwater
Con (against)

Euthanasia is a humane solution for the terminally ill

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ScotieRainwater has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2016 Category: People
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 348 times Debate No: 93932
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Letsdebate24

Pro

I am suggesting that there are some people in America that should have the right to choose euthanasia if they have conditions that are considered terminal.
ScotieRainwater

Con

As for choosing their own ends: What if a second after the "sleep" medicine or whatever is administered, the person suddenly changes their mind and wants to live? What if they're a child or they have some mental impairment and don't fully understand what they're agreeing to?

As for choosing another's end: Is that really a choice we ought to make for other people? Assuming we're talking about people who awake and somewhat aware and not people in a comma or brain dead or anything like that, should we really be allowed to choose whether or not another person died or lives?

This is not a simple matter of ending someone's suffering.
Debate Round No. 1
Letsdebate24

Pro

1. "What if a second after the "sleep" medicine or whatever is administered, the person suddenly changes their mind and wants to live?"
My response to this question is that though the person seeking out euthanasia would have to go through an extensive examination to ensure that they are mentally competent enough to make such a choice and understand the implications of their choice. Euthanasia would not be something that just anyone could decide to go through with without exceptional cause. As unlikely as it would be for a terminally ill patient on the verge of an excruciatingly painful, slow death to change their mind I must concede that it is still possible for a person to have a split second change of mind. I cannot come up with a sure fire plan to remedy this last second change of mind. But then life is full of situations in which a person willing agrees to something but then has a change of mind after the fact such as a roller coaster ride, signing a contract, or a plastic surgery to cite an example closer to the topic. A patient going in for any type of plastic surgery could theoretically change their mind right as their being put to sleep but they are still the one responsible for making that decision, not the surgeon. It is the job of the surgeon to explain every aspect of the surgery and the projected outcome to the patient and ensure that they understand. As long as the surgeon has done these things it then becomes the responsibility of the patient to make an informed decision as a competent adult.

2. "What if they're a child or they have some mental impairment and don't fully understand what they're agreeing to?"
In regards to a child, this would admittedly be a difficult case to handle since the vast majority of children do not posses the mental maturity to understand the implications of euthanasia. A case involving a child would have to be handled by the child's parent's or legal guardian such as any major surgery involving the possibility of death would be. Parents can refuse treatment based on their beliefs in which case the child might die because of that choice. There would need to be a different set of criteria to be met for children given their mental capacity before they could be approved for euthanasia.

A person with some type of mental impairment would be much the same type of situation as a child would be depending on the type of impairment. If the impairment rendered the patients mental capacity to that of a child the decision would then be made by the parents, spouse, or legal guardian. Mental impairment would have to be handled on a case by case basis just like every other request. The primary factor in mental impairment would have to be whether or not they are competent enough to make decisions for themselves much like a court determines if someone is mentally competent enough to stand trial. Mental conditions such as depression would not be granted euthanasia because it is not a terminal illness that someone is going to die from.

3. "As for choosing another's end: is that really a choice we out to make for other people?"
As I stated in previous paragraphs, this would not be a decision someone's doctor could make in lieu of a family member or legal guardian. People eligible for euthanasia would have to meet very strict criteria in order to have their request granted. They would have to be informed of every implication of euthanasia, and they would have to be evaluated to ensure that there is no reasonable expectation of survival.

Euthanasia is not about choosing another's end, it's about giving others power over their own bodies. To allow them to choose their own fate as they see fit. Let us not be so arrogant as to believe that we know whats best for others.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ScotieRainwater 8 months ago
ScotieRainwater
I'm sorry for having to forfeit. Some personal life stuff came up and thigns are pretty shitty right now so this hasn't been something on my mind.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.