Euthanasia is unethical
1. I have a Zero-Tolerance for harsh language. However, euphemisms, (Dang, darn, heck, frick) have acceptance at a minimum. Excessive use is inappropriate in a debate setting.
2. Any tangible information used to prove the truth of the matter asserted must at least one (1) reliable source. A short description of the approximate location in the source would be helpful as well.
3. Wikipedia is NOT a source.
Special rules for this kind of debate (Category - Social Morality/ethics):
1. Unique hypothetical situations are usually not appropriate to the question and premises of the larger argument. Steer clear unless used as rebuttals for definitive statements.
2. Emotions and personal experience is a supplement, not a replacement, for logic.
3. Ethics, morality, and philosophy will play a large role, I suspect. If you know the thinker who came up with the argument, supply his or her name and work.
Euthanasia Merriam-Webster Medical definition:
": the act or practice of killing hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy; also : the act or practice of allowing a hopelessly sick or injured patient to die by taking less than complete medical measures to prolong life"called also mercy killing "
This debate will specifically relate to physician assisted euthanasia.
Unethical Merriam-Webster definition:
"not conforming to a high moral standard; morally unacceptable "
Again, round one is acceptance. God bless. Looking forward to a good debate. Good luck to my opponent.
Ok so here's the gig, I have three logical moral arguments against euthanasia. This is my first time debating this subject while I know my opponent has ample knowledge of experience with it so bear with me here.
Do you think this started on it's own? No, it started when people began to think life was not as valuable as once thought. It started when people started playing God. It started with physician assisted suicide. Once that first barrier that "Life is too valuable" was broken, it became a free-for-all. I once debate a girl on this site who actually said that she thought it was not just not immoral, but actually ethical to kill every child with Down Syndrome.
I do not believe it to be ethical or right to delve into a grey area that also gets bigger. Where children are now being aborted, just because they are handicapped. Where children are shot in their schools by their own classmates. Euthanasia is just part of a larger battle for the value of life.
Thank you and goodnight.
Note: I love music and include them in many of my debates to put things in more perspective. So, I included a music video for this one. I always appreciate life when I watch it. This is not part of my contentions only to further implicate my points.
I will not be posting any rebuttals in this round, only my beginning arguments.
I will be providing four arguments as to why euthanasia should be considered ethical.
Quality of Life
For the terminally ill, there is virtually no quality of life whatsoever. Not only is severe pain a large part of this, but also other physical ailments such as incontinence, nausea and vomiting, breathlessness, paralysis, and difficulty swallowing. These issues will never go away for the terminally ill, and it makes them feel like a burden to their loved ones, thus making their quality of life even worse.
There is a reason that euthanasia is considered “mercy killing," and if I was ever put in the position of knowing that I wasn’t going to live, and I was completely dependant on the care of other people, I would be very grateful of having the choice to end it.
Impossibility of Survival
The definition of terminal is approaching or close to death: being in the final stages of a fatal disease.
Euthanasia is only to be carried out when the patient in question has a terminal illness, so therefore, has no chance of survival. There is no point in prolonging the suffering of a fatally ill person when they are going to die anyways. It would be considered a kindness to give the choice of death.
In 2009, it cost between $50,000 and $100,000 to keep a terminally ill patient alive in their last days. In 2013, a day in the intensive care unit of a hospital when the treatment was futile cost an average of $4,004 per patient.
I understand that it seems wrong to put a monetary value on a human life, but when that life is going to end anyways, it would be less of a financial burden on the family for the person to be euthanized.
Dignity In Death
Euthanasia assures the patient that they will be able to die in dignity. Not everybody is given the choice as to how they will die, and it is a tremendous opportunity when that choice is given. Someone would feel a lot better in dying if they chose how it was done, rather than just waiting for a disease to end it for them.
I appreciate my opponent's interesting and logical arguments. However, I do have a rebuttal that I would now like to present.
Quality of Life
Pain is a terrible thing. Disability is too, but I challenge my opponent's position that "There is virtually no quality of life whatsoever." There are people around the world without a terminal illness, but still with severe pain and disabilities. Take Stephen Hawking. Early in his twenties, he was given 3-5 years to live because of ALS(1), which is USUALLY terminal. Now he's 70 and one of the world's greatest physicists. He cannot speak on his own and can barely move. He is surrounded by nurses 24/7. He has lived a full life with a terminal illness that causes great pain and disability. (2)
Even if people with terminal illnesses truly only have a short time on earth, they can accomplish great things and experience life. If the mind is still sharp enough to make the decision to die, their mind is sharp enough to do so much more in their final days.
Also, here's something interesting, 90% of patients with terminal illnesses try to commit suicide.(3) The cause is not the pain or a want for dignity of death, but depression. They want to die for the same reason I once did: we lost hope. Not the pain, not the horrors of suffering, but depression is the major cause of a terminally ill patient desiring death.
Impossibility of Survival
In a world where doctors were perfect and never made mistakes, this would make perfect sense, but people can and do recover from "terminal" diseases, or at the very least live longer than expected. A doctor's diagnosis and time frame is not always right.
My grandfather's heart surgery cost $250,000. The cost to keep him alive and healthy, as I was told by him this past visit, was beginning to border on $500,000. The odds of the surgery being successful had only been about 50%, but you cannot put a dollar increment on the cost on human life.
Also, a declaration of terminal is a life expectancy of 6 months. (4) Meaning that the cost of keeping someone alive in that period by my opponent's statistic would be ~$278-$556 a day. Much less than it seems in the statistic.
Dignity in Death
Again, this is playing God. Human birth can be one of the most undignified things in the world. We can't always choose when and where it will happen, It's part of life's cycle. Also, this is another part of my slippery slope argument. This delves too much into the grey area for too little reward.
I extend my thus far undisputed contentions.
Thank you and goodnight.
I welcome my opponent's opening contentions and provide the following rebuttals.
It denies the value of human life
I am aware that the value of human life is a very difficult thing to measure and the question, "Can you even put a value on human life?" is a popular question, but in the cases where someone is in a completely gone mentally and is only "alive" physically, can that really be called a life? It would be more morally correct to let them go, rather than to force them to stay in the immovable cage that their body would become.
Life is defined as an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. With that definition of life, it wouldn't really be denying the value of life to euthanize a completely unresponsive patient.
Also, people can decide what they want the value of their own life to be, for it is their life. When someone feels like they have nothing left to offer in the world, and they know that they have no capability of doing anything else, because of their medical issue, then they have the right to decide whether or not they should be euthanized.
It plays God
I have also had issues with suicidal thoughts in my life, so I completely understand why my opponent would have this sort of standpoint, and I am somewhat religious so I will provide instances that actually make euthanasia match up with Christianity reasonably well.
God gave humans free will, and in that he intended for us to make our own decisions with our life on Earth, and that is exactly what people do when they decide that they want to be euthanized.
The so called "golden rule" of the Bible would be Matthew 7:12, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." If I was ever in the situation where I was terminally ill, I would be glad for someone to end my misery, and I wouldn"t deny that choice to anybody else either.
God gave humans free will over what they do. If he didn't everybody would just be a robot with no real thoughts or individuality. Since humans have free will, they should be able to decide when they want their life to end.
The people of this world do take things too far when certain restraints are taken away, this I can agree with, but the Nazi T4 program was in effect nearly one hundred years ago, and isn't particularly relevant in this more modern society. It is also a very unique and extreme example that is unlikely to take place again, for "forced euthanasia" seems like it should be considered murder, rather than physician assisted suicide.
In this day and age, it is significantly less likely that the availability of the choice to be euthanized will have a result even close to that of the T4 program.
I am looking forward to my opponent’s counter rebuttals
justin.graves forfeited this round.
Please do not penalize him, for it was out of his control.
I thank you on behalf of both of us.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|