Euthanasia should be available for use.
Debate Rounds (4)
it would also be preferred if you did not focus your argument around religion, not totally banned but it just can't be the focus.
R2 main arguments
R3 counter arguments
R4 rebuttals and closing statements
Apply in comments
One of these arguments I have heard several times is what if the person can be saved but they would have to wait?
This can be seen as a problem of rights from one angle and morals from others, I will be trying to do both.
To start on the side of rights. Everybody has "Human Rights" rights that everybody should have regardless of differences. This isn"t directly stated I believe but many people also consider the right to life as part of these things, either way it shouldn"t matter for my argument. Everybody having this right would be pointless if they didn"t have the right to choose what they do in their life. Now to dive more specifically into euthanasia and how this all ties in to what I said. There are many people in much pain in suffering from many different things. Since euthanasia is normally associated with the sick, that is where my focus will be. As you should know, there are many painful medical conditions that are not easy to treat at the same time. Then euthanasia would be used to end their suffering as it is their choice. If a person has the right to control their life, why shouldn"t they have the right to end it?
Keeping someone of life support can be costly and they might not even be able to save the person. And sometimes the person on that life support, just doesn"t want to burden themselves or the family the entire time. A lot of times people can see that there is no chance and don"t wan to burden their family anymore. So what would banning euthanasia from these people accomplish. In a sense of rights it should make sense and morally no one is getting harmed. I await my opponents main argument.
I would like to point out that in many countries around the world, countries that are less developed than ours or equal to ours, have made the use of Euthanasia illegal. Why? Well, numerous reasons exist actually. I, however, will only be presenting the two I feel are the strongest.
For example, Voluntary Euthanasia, which is what my opponent is debating for, can and most likely will lead to Involuntary Euthanasia. For clarification, if doctors who consented to willfully euthanize a patient who has requested to be euthanized. then what would stop anyone who could be treated successfully from ending their lives? Many treatments in medicine today cause a worrying amount of pain and can be extremely uncomfortable. Chemo therapy is one such medicinal treatment. Cancer is an almost certainly lethal disease, most people don't survive it. Yet, a lucky number manage to fight it and survive. The process is painful though, chemo therapy is one of the surest ways cancer can be treated, but it is a very uncomfortable experience and can make those being treated want to simply give up. But it works, as of today, chemo therapy is one of the closest and most effective ways to treat cancer patients. If the person has a chance, to survive and see another day, but they had to suffer, then they should fight. We all feel pain, but only through suffering can we reach paradise. It would be an involuntary use of euthanasia to mercy kill a patient who has a fighting chance.
Another reason why Euthanasia should not be used would be how it undermines medicine. My father is podiatrist, a foot doctor. He has seen people die from the things that can happen in a person's foot, and he has treated many different diseases, injuries, and disorders. He tells stories all the time, a patient of his one day had a horribly infected foot, gangrene was forming and the infected area had spread to his leg and his lower torso. The patient begged for him to just end the pain, my father instead tried to save him. He managed to keep the man alive after spending extensive amounts of time with him, and he only lost his foot. They both still talk, I've met the old man, he has talks of my father as though he were a superhero. The purpose of the story is to show just how easily people can make the decision to give up when something can actually be done. Medicine has come a long way since the 18th century, new methods of treatment exist for nearly all diseases and disorders, to beg for euthanasia when something can honestly be done is taking medicine for granted. It even denounces medicine, making it look like it has no use anymore, and that the only true way of recovering is to end one's own life.
Overall, Euthanasia is the easy way out. Yes, many diseases and disorders may be incurable, irreversible, but to allow the Euthanization of the few would lead to movement of the Euthanization for all. Euthanization for those who don't truly need it would occur, and the shunning of what medicine can actually do and its possibilities would arise. While euthanasia can be shown to be morally correct, if these are the factors that can come into play as a result of euthanasia, then isn't it truly morally wrong? My opponent has shown the value of Deontology, the ends justify the means. But does the process of how we reach the end matter?
I await my opponent's counter arguments.
I would also like to state that this counter argument will most likely be somewhat short as my response will most likely get straight to the point.
I will concede to this statement that my opponent made "My opponent has shown the value of Deontology, the ends justify the means." that is my mind set for a lot of things.
The flaw in my opponents hinges on one main point, the fact that his argument hinges on the fact that it is possible for the patient to recover from their treatment. This is possible, but is it reason to get rid of it entirely? We could spend a long time debating the specifics but the question is simply if it should be allowed for use. Meaning instead of debating possible scenarios and requirements, we are simply arguing over weather it should simply be used. As clear cut yes or no stance.
So on to the point. To remove euthanasia on the premise of someone being able to save the patient may seem sound, but does it truly make sense? This scenario you focus on is existent yet not a constant concern. Not everybody will ask for euthanasia as a lot of times people will see beyond the immediate pain. So should this scenario you have given take it away from everybody?
I would like to bring up the concept of body autonomy for this next part. Body autonomy is the concept that someone has full control over their body and is something I strongly stand with under most circumstances. I bring this up as this is one of the scenarios where bodily autonomy could come in. if a person consents to anything then it lies upon them to accept the responsibility of that decision, often knowing what is to come. When someone gives consent to use euthanasia its them accepting that the will dies yet also knowing it would be painless.
So to finish wrap this up. The scenario brought up by my opponent could happen, yet is no where near the majority to most uses of it. So should this minority destroy a persons ability to end their own suffering.
My standing is no, euthanasia should not be available for use.
My opponent has brought up the concept of body autonomy as a counter argument, and while I agree that bodily autonomy is important, it needs its restrictions as much as anything else does. The ability and knowledge that we have control of who we are and what we do is one of the few feelings of actual freedom we ever get to truly express. Yet, nothing is without its consequences. Should someone consent to be euthanized, every outcome needs to be taken into account. For example, the costs, the lasting effects on those who care about the person, the effect on the person giving the Euthanization. We cannot allow such an act to be available for use if the main argument is bodily autonomy and the patient not wanting to be a burden on those caring for them. It isn't always ourselves we worry about, it's also how are actions affect others. Bodily autonomy is accepted, but it shouldn't be absolute, we would reap far more consequences than originally intended.
Now for my counter argument, I would like to introduce the public conscience and medical ethics.
When anything is legalized and made available, it becomes accepted. When something becomes accepted, it becomes a norm. Euthanasia should not be available for use for its inevitable affects on the public conscience and its violation of the doctors moral codes and ethics. If euthanasia were available and accepted, we would be hiring executioners, not doctors. The public mind would sway to a numbed state, where walking into a hospital is either your conscience decision to be treated or placed in a body bag. But that's just the issue, soon, death would become so common a thing and people would accept the fact that you would never need to suffer again. The ill would see euthanasia as a quicker more efficient means of treatment, and if the public wasn't still in the state of mind that the loss is great, they'd be in support of and making pre arrangements for the newly decided to be deceased. The other problem with that would be the decision on who would commit the Euthanization. Doctors and nurses alike take an oath not to bring harm to any person who comes into their care, to treat those who need them most, and to not simply let a person die. If euthanasia were available, who would be the one to deliver it? The doctors? They have broken an oath to not bring harm to those under their care. The nurses? They have also just broken their oath. So we must resort to the unbiased, the people whose conscience mind see nothing in euthanasia besides the earning of cash.
The possibility of recovery is not the only reason euthanasia should not be available for use. Society has evolved from what it was so long ago, we cannot simply throw out the progress that has been made for an easier solution, for an absolute control over the body. Limitations exist to keep a general welfare, it is not a minority that destroys a person's right to end their life. It is the oaths, the public mind, the costs, the effects. It is the majority.
Again opponent seems to focus his argument around a single point. I gather that my opponent this time focuses on the point of public acceptance. This is a problem that every aspect of society has had to get through. Euthanasia would go through this process and if people are properly informed on it, no body would take the unnecessary use.
I enjoyed this debate with my opponent and learning his views.
I would like to refute my opponent's statement mentioned in her counter argument, "As clear cut as yes or no stance", I would like to state that, in order to give my straight answer, I need a reasoning behind it. I feel the semantics behind every public adjustment should be taken into consideration when making a choice, even if it is as simple as a yes or no question. If euthanasia were to be available for use, then yes, I agree that it would go through an acceptance process. I do not doubt that people would not be properly informed on the matter either. Rather, I look at the negatives such a thing has a possibility of bringing. Medical marijuana is available to cancer patients, yet there will always be ways for such acceptances to be abused. Whose to say that euthanasia could not go through the same process? I can see clearly the benefits of making euthanasia available for use. But it is not being a pessimist that makes me see the negatives, it is being cautious that brings such things to light.
Again, I would like to congratulate my opponent and thank her for a debate worthy of record.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SocialDemocrat 11 months 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Well con brought up a couple processes like saying that having voluntary euthanasia will lead to involuntary euthanasia, and that things that are legalized become normal. But he never says why this is a negative thing, to my perspective its a positive thing, and he provided no context against that. On the other hand all pro really had to say is that people have body freedom and the right to live and he was already 4 or 5 leagues more convincing to me than con.
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.