Euthanasia needs to be made legal for those who need it
Debate Rounds (3)
I appreciate this debate and look forward to it. First Euthanesia (doctor assisted suicide) Should not be legal due to three main reasons that i will state with sub-topics. The reasons are, Value of human life, it undermines medicine research, its contradicts the right to live.
Value of human life.
As stated in the constitution, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happiness." Euthanasia undermines the human life. Giving doctors the right to assist in suicide is giving power to doctors or to kill. All humans have the right to live. One does not choose his or her birth day, why should one choose his or her death day. This is a case of right to die versus right to kill. We have a right to die naturally. This is the reason when someone is murdered, the murderer is arrested. Samething in any case where a person does not die naturally. One could argue what about medicine and people who die from overdose and things like that because medicine is not natural. Dying naturally is simply the body not being able to handle whatever is the cause of death. Body not being able to handle medicine, alcohol, etc. Something that is not caused directly by someone else.
Undermines medical research
I understand people suffer. The pain is a big factor in this. Many with natural illnesses or termanlly ill want to die. One thing you have to consider is the medical research society has come to invent. Years ago, society lacked medicine, treatmants and such that temporarily help those who are suffering with their pain. By allowing someone to say "i want to do" and allowing this, the value of the medicine research that has been done to help treat the patient and potentially cure the patient is undermined. Eventually you fall into a society that could view it alright for a doctor to take the liffe of someone who wants to die. Same thing with suicide which is also illegal. By making this legal, you open a door that says "suicide is ok." Many do not realize that people in critical conditions facing pain are often not in the right mind and suffer a false sense of worthlessness. That person may want to die simply because the pain is unbearable. Many in critical situations are not in the right mind. People whom have attempted suicide sometimes come to realize they do not wanna die, they just want happiness. It is difficult to let someone pursue happniess when we allow one to decide that their life is meaningless.
Contradicts right to live
Humans have a right to live. We know this. We do not have a right to die though. If we had a right to die i beleive society would not be as strict on murders. If the right to die was in the Declaration of independence, or Constituion, a murder could simply kill and use the right to die as the reason for the murder. This could open doors for more murders and issues among society. Simply one cannot have a right to die as it is too vague. The right too die could be phrased as right to choose death. As far as it being a slow death, to many that slow death can be worth it to famliy members and others whom are effected directly.
Overall i beleive people should not be allowed to decide that. Curing versus killing is a big part of the right to die. I beleive it should not be allowed because people are not always in the right mind when terminally ill, and often suffer from depression. There can be alternative treatments that prolong eath and can help patients. By offering the right of death it could lead to more people deciding it is better to kill then find a cure. This leads to unreasonable deaths.
Regardless. Once you put down that one can choose to die, what do you do if that does become an issue in the court system and justice system. Lets sy someone is murdered and the person says that the victim wanted to die, what grants the doctor more powerful than a criminal why should a doctor be able to take the life. If anything the person should be taking his own life. It should be just suicide but this is about Euthanasia.
"what if a person has a disease where medicine doesn't work and euthanasia is the only option?"
Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available.
That is from the site i introduced here.
"We shouldn't be able to tell someone what they can or can't do.
Then you can not establish order or maintain a society. If we should not tell someone what they can or can not do then we should not tell people they can not murder, assault and things of that nature. Regardless of wether it is consensual it is still technically murder. Just as if i have a friend that asks me to kill them and i do then it is murder. Its under the same juristiction.
"how would you feel if someone was making you live in pain because you wanted to be euthanized and you couldn't do that?"
Again it can be noted that doctors dealing with terminally ill patients, notice that the patients suffer from depression and lack of self worth. What if death is not what they want? What if they just want the pain to go away which as stated above can be temporarily aleiviated.
"If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period."
This goes along with medical ethics. Doctors are here to help save lives regardless. You still have not show why it "needs to be" like that.
Your argument is based around "if someone is in pain they have the right to end their life."
1. What about suicidal teenagers, adults, kids.
You might say "well they are not terminally ill" but, since depression is classified as a mental disorder and one trys to take his or her own life that is the same boundries as terminally ill. That person is gonna try to kill themselves and its a matter of time before they do. So, do we allow it or try to fight it and help it?
If one wanted to go as technical to say "everyone is terminally ill" one could. We are all guranteed to die and that death should be prolonged when it comes to terminally ill patients. Im sure there were millions of people in modern times who wished death could have been prolonged. We should not undermine the research and allow so much power to a doctor in these situations.
My argument stands as
1. It undermines medical research
2. There are ways to allievate the symptoms and fight it
3. Terminally ill patients often suffer from depression (http://jco.ascopubs.org...)
4. Contradicts right to live.
The second link is a study i found interesting that talks about terminally ill patients and how depression plays a huge part in decision making.
I will not reintroduce any new arguments i will respond to what you said however.
Again you have ignored my argument that these patients suffer from depression which can alter their decision. Which could mean maybe tony just needed a happier atmosphere.
Killing him would affect his family. His friends and others. Last minutes should be cherished.
Furthermore your argument is centered around the idea that ""If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period." Not whether it is truly needed.
Euthanasia should not be made legal due the key points that my opponent has not refuted.
-Undermines medical research
-Medicine can be used to prolong and help patients
- Patients suffer from depression that could alter decision making
My opponent has not argued what determines whether a patient needs euthanasia and has based his argument strictly on feeling and not other circumstances that are affected
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by danielawesome12 3 years ago
|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||2|
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Con's arguments were longer, but not better. 2. Con listed sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.