The Instigator
Juris
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
MysticEgg
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

Euthanasia is acceptable

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,890 times Debate No: 38478
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Juris

Con

Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.

The proposition: Euthanasia is acceptable.

I will be against Euthanasia. It is unacceptable to me.

I will give my points in round 2 and 3.

thanks!
MysticEgg

Pro

I accept my opponent's challenge and look forward to an enlightening debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Juris

Con

It devalues human life. This is one reason why euthanasia is not acceptable. Proponents of euthanasia, however, do not believe it degrades life and for them patients who suffer from incurable disease should be afforded with a choice whether or not to end their sufferings. But the problem with that, it is not always the case, not all reasons for accepting euthanasia center on the suffering of a patient, other reasons are decreasing medical costs and other monetary reasons. For example, a report issued by EPAC, the Economic Planning and Advisory Council, a government think-tank. The report discussed the rising costs of medical care for the elderly, and rising hospital costs in general, and actually suggested that euthanasia might be an option in dealing with this crisis. There was no mention of suffering or the humane treatment of dying human beings. Instead, cold utilitarian considerations of cost-cutting were given as the reason to consider euthanasia.1

That becomes problem when reasons, other than the suffering of the patient, are given in support with euthanasia. It degrades the life of person by saying that his life is less important than the money that might be saved if euthanasia is accepted.

Life is very sacred, accepting euthanasia destroys that sanctity. It may be your life but according to God, you don’t have the right to take it.

Another reason against euthanasia, It neither preserve human life nor protect the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion

In Washington v. Glucksberg ,the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that a right to assistance in committing suicide was not protected by the Due Process Clause.2

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion for the court. His decision reversed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a ban on physician assisted suicide embodied in Washington's Natural Death Act of 1979 was a violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court held that because assisted-suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest, it was not protected under the 14th Amendment. As previously decided in Moore v. East Cleveland, liberty interests not "deeply rooted in the nation's history" do not qualify as being a protected liberty interest. Assisted-suicide, the court found, had been frowned upon for centuries and a majority of the States had similar bans on assisted suicide. Rehnquist found the English common-law penalties associated with assisted suicide particularly significant. For example, at early common law, the state confiscated the property of a person who committed suicide. Like Blackmun in Roe v. Wade, Rehnquist used English common law to establish American tradition as a yardstick for determining what rights were "deeply rooted in the nation's history." Rehnquist cited Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the opinion.3

The Court felt that the ban was rational in that it furthered such compelling state interests as the preservation of human life and the protection of the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. It also prevented those moved to end their lives because of financial or psychological complications. The Court also felt that if the Court declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutionally protected right, they would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary euthanasia.4

Similarly, in Vacco v. Quill, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great pain, was a legitimate state interest that was well within the authority of the state to regulate. In brief, this decision established that, as a matter of law, there was no constitutional guarantee of a "right to die."5






Sources:

[1] http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...

[2] [3] [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
MysticEgg

Pro

Thanks to Con for his opening contentions; allow me to respond.


Opponent's Contention One: It devalues human life
Con's case is that there was one report issued by EPAC that made a suggestion that killing people is OK, because it saves money. Well, let me consider this.

First, a lot of Con's contention is quoted word for word from his source, a blog (I believe) by one Bill Muehlenberg.[1] Here's the thing, it gives no source of it's wild assertions. It is merely a wall of text making bold claims to degrade EPAC's stance[1]. No source at all. Con's whole case is a source less quote. It is not reliable and is also an ad hominem of: EPAC did this bad thing, therefore, euthanasia is bad.

So, until Con provides a reliable source, his contention is just a claim without evidence and thus can be dismissed without evidence.

"Life is very sacred, accepting euthanasia destroys that sanctity. It may be your life but according to God, you don’t have the right to take it." This is religious bias and thus invalid. ((Even if it were true, so much for free will, eh?))


Opponent's Contention Two: "It neither preserve[s] human life nor protect[s] the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion"

Here, my opponent puts forward a vast array of fallacies and implied fallacies. It is a series of court cases in the USA that found euthanasia to be unacceptable. Here are the fallacies:

Ad populum: The majority thought that euthanasia is wrong, therefore, euthanasia is wrong.
Appeal to authority: The supreme court itself thought that it was wrong, therefore, it is wrong.

If that holds, I argue that the Belgian courts found it was OK, therefore, it's OK.

The problem with my opponent's second contention is that it is just a court ruling and not an actual argument.


Now that my opponent's contentions are refuted, allow me to introduce a contention of my own:

Contention One: Humility
Here's a scenario: An old man, a war veteran, is terminally ill. He is dying, in constant great pain; he is also paralysed and cannot move. Day by day, more of his muscles lose control; he's already lost control of his bowels, legs, arms etc... He is also poor with no family and has to be attended to by doctors and nurses every single day. He wants to die.

But he can't.

Euthanasia is to preserve humility of a person who cannot do anything, who wants to die, who cannot do anything, in great pain, and immense suffering. It is a way out - a final way out.
Con presents a case where this cannot happen and thus far, he has given no reason as to why it shouldn't be so. I'll pass the ball over to Con, then.

See you all next round!

[1]http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...



Debate Round No. 2
Juris

Con

[First, a lot of Con's contention is quoted word for word from his source, a blog (I believe) by one Bill Muehlenberg.[1] Here's the thing, it gives no source of it's wild assertions. It is merely a wall of text making bold claims to degrade EPAC's stance[1]. No source at all. Con's whole case is a source less quote. It is not reliable and is also an ad hominem of: EPAC did this bad thing, therefore, euthanasia is bad.]

How can you say that it was meant to degrade EPAC? Haven’t you read that it was about euthanasia? Prove to me that it was ad hominem against EPAC! Don’t just say that it was without any support.

Can you show me that euthanasia does not degrade human life? Because all you have done is to attack my source by saying that there was a bias against EPAC- this begs the question on how can that be an ad hominem against EPAC which in fact, the whole statement in my source was about euthanasia, and EPAC was just mentioned as an example.

You have the burden of proof! Don’t just attack the status quo but please provide compelling reasons as to why euthanasia should be acceptable.


"Life is very sacred, accepting euthanasia destroys that sanctity. It may be your life but according to God, you don’t have the right to take it." This is religious bias and thus invalid. ((Even if it were true, so much for free will, eh?))

So, you don’t believe that life is sacred?

Free will huh? So you think that each person has the right to take another’s life because of free will? Whatever you say euthanasia is still killing. Free will should not infringe the right to life!


Here, my opponent puts forward a vast array of fallacies and implied fallacies. It is a series of court cases in the USA that found euthanasia to be unacceptable. Here are the fallacies:

Ad populum: The majority thought that euthanasia is wrong, therefore, euthanasia is wrong.
Appeal to authority: The supreme court itself thought that it was wrong, therefore, it is wrong.
If that holds, I argue that the Belgian courts found it was OK, therefore, it's OK.

That can only be appeal to authority if the supreme court is not entitled or expert to give its opinion. But it has the right to do so, therefore, your appeal to authority contention is invalid.

Can you show me a case that support your claim? You should counter my contention with a case.

The problem with my opponent's second contention is that it is just a court ruling and not an actual argument.

Court rulings came from actual arguments and supported by law and the constitution. Do you think court rulings are not decided from arguments from both parties? So where did it came from? Outer space?



Contention One: Humility
Here's a scenario: An old man, a war veteran, is terminally ill. He is dying, in constant great pain; he is also paralysed and cannot move. Day by day, more of his muscles lose control; he's already lost control of his bowels, legs, arms etc... He is also poor with no family and has to be attended to by doctors and nurses every single day. He wants to die.

But he can't.

Euthanasia is to preserve humility of a person who cannot do anything, who wants to die, who cannot do anything, in great pain, and immense suffering. It is a way out - a final way out.
Con presents a case where this cannot happen and thus far, he has given no reason as to why it shouldn't be so. I'll pass the ball over to Con, then.


Is this your only argument? You have the burden of proof because the status quo is against euthanasia. You just presented a hypothetical scenario, without even presenting any evidence- like expert opinion, documentary, and among others. You solely relied on your example which does not prove anything.

You only presented one point. You should have elaborate your case and have presented pieces of evidence.

Do you think just because people are already suffering and they want to die, that we should support euthanasia? So what if all the broken hearted people, extremely poor people, demoralized soldiers, and other hopeless people want to die? Would you support them just because they already want to die and that they have free will?

Clearly, you haven’t shown enough in this debate. You just presented a very weak hypothetical example not even supported by any evidence. You failed to realize that you have the burden of proof. You just relied on your rebuttals which do not even effectively countered my claims.

Thanks!
MysticEgg

Pro

Thanks to Pro for this debate; my final responses are below.


Opponent's Contention One: It degrades human life
My opponent just evades my actual refute that there's no source and that almost the whole thing is quoted and merely states:

"Can you show me that euthanasia does not degrade human life?" This is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy. In this debate, the burden of proof was on both of us, if it wasn't, you wouldn't have used any contentions. My opponent clearly implies his positive stance of: Euthanasia degrades human life. Saying that "I cannot show how it doesn't" ((I can - I'll address it later)), therefore, you're correct is not adequate.

I made a suggestion, expressed as a motion, as to what the source was showing - EPAC's evil, evil money-holding lords! My point is that my opponent gives no source to back up these large claims and thus I can logically dismiss them without the need for counter-evidence. No point providing counter-evidence if there's nothing to counter.

In reality, my opponent's contention was how legal euthanasia could be mistreated. Fine. But he hasn't given me any examples of this! At least, nothing that holds up to scrutiny.

"You have the burden of proof!" As I already pointed out; I have some of the burden. My opponent has some more, which he tried to fulfil by using contentions. In conclusion, my opponent's refute to my counter was evasion, straw man, and he completely missed the point of my refute. He also tried to shift the burden of proof completely onto me.


Opponent's Note One: Free will and sacredness
I won't go into semantics, but my opponent moves the goalposts here. Life is sacred to a degree, but I will show why euthanasia can actually support this claim later.


Opponent's Contention Two: The US court rulings
My opponent apparently consents this ad populum fallacy. Since a fallacy is, by definition, not logical, his whole contention is refuted. Nevertheless, I will continue to counter:

"That can only be appeal to authority if the supreme court is not entitled or expert to give its opinion."

Demonstrably false. An authority fallacy is authority = truth. Indeed, my opponent's counter actually supports my claim, because it is an authority it makes the argument fallacious! You cannot use an authority to equal truth. Refuted.

I should counter my opponent's contention to reveal it for the fallacious argument it is. If it's fallacious, which I have shown, then it's invalid.


Contention One: Humility
I gave a hypothetical situation. In this case, euthanasia would be acceptable. I do not have to give examples, only why it is acceptable. We are talking about the concept, not the actual act - even though they are similar. Therefore, my opponent's counter was true to an extent, but it doesn't work as a refute. I extend my argument because my opponent has failed to refute it.



A big thanks to my opponent for this entertaining debate! I'll see you all around!


J


Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
JurisMysticEggTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very close debate. I had to read twice to make up my mind. Arguments were very close but I shall award it to Con because of Pro's false notion about "appeals to authority." While it is true that authority isn't always equal to truth, Con only used an authority to make an argument. Truth can't be presented in a raw format. It needs to be attained through such arguments. Hence, Con's appeal to authority is not logically invalid. It would be if it was (1) from someone who is not an authority and (2) if it contradicts the mainstream opinion of the authorities on the subject. Other than this, both participants gave relatively good arguments for their position. I just saw the refutation of this particular contention from Pro to be quite ineffective. On Conduct, Con was very hostile while Pro debated this more politely. Hence, I give Conduct to Pro for being pleasant throughout the whole debate. Citations go for Pro because Con offered weak sources that Pro easily refuted.