The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Euthanasia needs to be made legal for those who need it

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,052 times Debate No: 33516
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Many people die a slow death because the law is against Euthanasia, but why? Why is it so bad if thousands of people beg for it and even go to the courts for the right to die? It is a personal choice and it needs to be made legal.


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.
Debate Round No. 1


I understand what you are saying that we should not be allowed to take out own lives, but isn't that your choice to make? Why even live in this world if we can't make out own decisions. Yes there could be medicine but what if a person has a disease where medicine doesn't work and euthanasia is the only option? The process of euthanasia is a process with full consent from the patient, and the doctor can't even be in the room when they pass so it is completely the patients choice. We shouldn't be able to tell someone what they can or can't do. Just think if you were in their shoes, how would you feel if someone was making you live in pain because you wanted to be euthanized and you couldn't do that? It may be seem unconstitutional to most people but its not their decision to make, it's the patients decision and no one else should make it for then. If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period.


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 (
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.

Debate Round No. 2


I want you to look up who Tony Nicklinson is and tell me why euthanasia was not a legal option for him? It was clearly his choice, and other people(judges and attorneys in the court system) made him live in lockout syndrome even longer. He ended up refusing food and starving himself to death. Your statements saying we need to find better medical research obviously doesnt apply to cases like such, and most patients who want Euthanasia have similar cases. Going back to what you said, your saying we should make people like Tony Nicklinson live if he doesnt want to anymore? (look him up for a better understanding of his story)


This is not about tony or any specific person. This about offering a process that should not be offered. If you use that argument then why should Tony die. Your overall argument has ignored every point i have made.

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

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by VaasMontenegro 3 years ago
Euthanasia IS legal, hermano. Buy a Hi-Point for 140 dollars, get a box of Winchester whitebox, hell, maybe hollow-points, load the gun, put it to your head, and boom, euthanasia.

It isn't hard, even if you barely have use of certain parts of your body. SURE, in some cases it just CAN'T be done, but hey, life sucks, obviously.

Why should we put the obligation of killing a non-combatant, aka murder, onto the hands of another person? Do you really want someone to be in the position to say "I make a living by putting old and sick people to sleep."

If someone wants to die, it's in their own hands, or the hands of fate. As you mentioned, self-starvation is an option. As I mentioned, a cheap pistol and a few bullets. If that's not an option, there's always a shotgun. Those are legal in pretty much every state, and 12 gauge double-00 buckshot packs a punch.

Nobody else should be responsible for your death except for you, God, and the choice of poison.
Posted by Qwerty987654 3 years ago
We all have the right to live, but it shouldnt be an obligation. I also believe that the euthanasia should be legalized, but with certain restrictions and rules. It should include thing like " the pacient will have to wait a certain period of time from the application of the euthanasia to the actual event so that they will have time to think about it" or " the pacient must consult a phsycologist to determine that the decision is completely made by himself and with a clear mind". In my opinion the euthanasia should only be applied to pacients that suffer extreme pain or has a clear phisical disability, such as Ramon Sampedro. A film has been made based on his story called " the sea inside". He can only move his head and for 28 or so years he has been in the same bed doing the same thing preaty much every day. Its tells the story of how he found freedom, which for him was death.
Posted by ArmchairArchitect 3 years ago
First of all, I want to say that in my experience, those who usually oppose euthanasia or suicide are usually people who have never been in a position or situation in which they feel that they would rather take their own life than continue to live. Most people don't speak from experience on this issue, and experience is key to beginning to understanding this situation.

I think that if euthanasia is legalized, there need to be restrictions. As with almost anything, regulations need to be enforced to keep the system from being abused and overused. As Jhate previously stated, euthanasia undermines medicine and medical research, justifiably or not. If every patient, or a large portion of them, experiencing some sort of pain or suffering requested euthanasia, the potential to drastically undermine medicine and medical culture as a whole could be great. That doesn't necessarily mean that that will happen, especially given current public stigma surrounding any sort of suicide, but the possibility is there. Some sort of regulation, perhaps confining euthanasia options to terminally-ill patients for example, I think would be a good idea.

That being said, preserving the sanctity of medical society is NOT an adequate reason for keeping somebody alive against their will, especially for the reason that this contradicts the free-thinking and free-will ideals set forth in the constitution of the United States of America (assuming we're only talking about the United States). If somebody is in pain, wants to die, and your medical research would be compromised in the case of their death (so you desperately want to keep them alive), medical research is NEVER more important than human life, especially if that decision about a person's life is not being made by that person themselves.

In response to Jhate,

Euthanasia has everything to do with us being a free country; you have a right to live as well as to die, and no one can make that decision for you but yourself.
Posted by tyounes312 3 years ago
You have the right to life. If you are willing to accept it that is your business
Posted by cmeyers97 3 years ago
No one can say whether or not a patient "needs" it, that's up to the patient. If they say they want to take that route, no one should stop them because it is a personal choice that needs to be honored and respected.
Posted by Myette 3 years ago
The operative word here is "need." Who defines whether or not a person "needs" euthanasia?
Posted by Jhate 3 years ago
Euthanasia has nothing to do with us being a free country.
Posted by windian 3 years ago
Euthanasia mustbbe made legal. I had a personal family memeber who lost her life to unknown primary cancer. People with diseases like cancer that has reached thei spinal cord have no hope for survival. All they know is when where and how they will die. Not that they will become better. When a loved one of mine had cancer thed already had cancer for six months before i found out. On top of that they stqrted radiation and cheomoherapy but we all knew it was too late. On top pf that that person broke their pelvis due to more bone structure from the radiation treatment. After that we all knew there was no hope. The doctors predicted three months but that person lasted six months. All im trying to say is the pain of seeing someone die is too intense. Especiaaly for he peraon who is diagnosed with cancer. Most people do not posses the will power to struggle. They should be given the right to euthanasia. After all we are a free country.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by danielawesome12 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Con's arguments were longer, but not better. 2. Con listed sources.