The Instigator
philipisbad
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Reformist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Euthanasia should be available to everyone who is considering suicide.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 791 times Debate No: 82979
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

philipisbad

Pro

My position is that euthanasia should be available to anyone who wishes to kill themselves.
I am not stating that everyone will have easy access to euthanasia like they have access to a can of Coke. There must be counselling, talking with the families, and a lot of time to reconsider the decision. This is important because the individual cannot be making this decision because of treatable mental health issue or a sudden whim of emotion. This must be a rational decision based on their conviction about life.
Humans are just randomly thrown into life. If life is forced upon humans, should not humans have freedom to dispose of it freely? For example, let's say that gift that a person does not like is forcefully given to the person. The person should have the freedom to dispose of the gift, since the person does not like the gift and was given of gift against his will. The fact that it was given does not make it necessity that the person should appreciate it.
And it is obvious that there is a point where life will not worth the existence. If a person finds meaningless and has considerable evidence that life will continue that way, life is simply not worth the existence. It is cruel that such a existence must continue.
Death is something that all humans must go through. If a person decides that he wants to go through it early, there should be no stopping of it. Suicide by hanging, shooting, or any other methods are susceptible to failed attempts and can be really painful. Allowing euthanasia for everyone who wants it will allow them to die painlessly and peacefully.
Reformist

Con

I would say no. While you do mention that there needs to be time for counesling we have to understand that sometimes that person isn't capable/refuses to be rehabilited. While I do agree in some cases of euthanasia your argument isn't about it being used in some cases. Your saying it should be available for EVERYONE. So that means children and the mentally disturbed. Killing is not the remedy unless the person is in physical pain that cannot be cured and he will suffer forever. People who commit suicide, in most cases, are not thinking straight and through difficulty and hardships they decide not to commit suicide. Ill give you an example. There was a man who wanted to commit suicide because his wife was cheating on him. He wanted to commit sucide. But one of their relatives turned him into the police and he went into a mental hospital. That man cursed and cursed and said how he was suffering and how he was going to kill himself when he got the chance. However after multiple weeks of solitude and constant counseling.... he got better. He is now married, has a kid, and got a promotion. Catering to people whims is not always in that person's best interest.....especially if they want to commit suicide
Debate Round No. 1
philipisbad

Pro

I have addressed your point in my previous argument.
" I am not stating that everyone will have easy access to euthanasia like they have access to a can of Coke. There must be counselling, talking with the families, and a lot of time to reconsider the decision. This is important because the individual cannot be making this decision because of treatable mental health issue or a sudden whim of emotion. This must be a rational decision based on their conviction about life."
No one should commit suicide based on whims. You are absolutely right. However, if the person has not changed his mind after all the effort available, it would be merciful for us to offer a painless solution, rather than forcing him to get hit by a bus.
Actually, allowing this on governmental level will help theses people. Since government will offer these people a painless solution to die, this will make many people to apply for euthanasia. However, these people must get help before such a thing can happen as I have stated. In many cases, suicide is the result of not reaching out. If euthanasia can be given after all the effort has been done, many will actually stop considering euthanasia like in your case. Few will still decide to go with euthanasia, in which case they will die painless death.
Reformist

Con

Yes I understand your argument that it should not be offered as a can of coke. However that's what will happen. Many sucide attemptee do not seek/ will NOT listen to medical advice and will NOT listen to their family. I thought I already talked about this with a real life story of one of my teachers. The LAST thing the government needs to administer are death options. The Death penalty is already cruel enough we do not need to give people the option to die if they do not have any painful/ physical problems. Like I said the main cause of suicide is spiked depression. The victim will shut her/himself to outside contact and become a shell and seek a way out.... Many times people just commit suicide to cope with that depression. Also again no qualms about administering asked euthanasia for people with painful tragedies that have no cure. Instead of encouraging euthanisa or the EASY way out we need to encourage rehabilitation. Right now all I hear from you is that they get counseling and lots of time.... but if you don't actually take care of the problem that's all going to be for nothing and they will just choose the euthanasia option. Lots of suicides are prevented by informing the authority and having that person take medical drugs or be in mental hosptals

If the euthanasia option was available for that teacher he would've done it. He would have. He wouldn't have his happy life. He wouldn't have his new job or his new wife or his new kid. None of that. Because he took the easy way out
Debate Round No. 2
philipisbad

Pro

It is foolish to assume that life will get magically better for everyone. One should have the freedom to decide rationally on that, and it is only rational that the government assist one's decision on that.
For example, euthanasia should be available to people with none-lethal disease. If the person decides that the disease will make his life miserable even though it will not take his life, then that person should have the right to access euthanasia. Of course, there can be miracles, but whether future will be better or not should be decided by the person himself. We should not impose our belief that life will magically get better. It may, but it may not.
For people with depression, yes, their ability to decide rationally may be disturbed. In this case, extra caution would be very necessary, but the basic premise does not change. We should not be judging that everyone's life will certainly get better on every case. It is up to the person himself to decide that.
Reformist

Con

Pro basically states that killing themselves is a right way out of depression

Its not

And while you say take extra precautions and say there should be counseling doesn't mean anything if the person is set on the path to kill themselves

Depression is treatable and killing yourself or having someone kill you is not the way to treat yourself

The last thing we need to do is encourage the act of killing oneself because they feel bad about themselves in their current predictment
Debate Round No. 3
philipisbad

Pro

The person should be able to decide upon that, not an arbitrary person. Death is sleep, and it is just another way in which you can go about your life. There is nothing inherently wrong with it.
Let's state Laura from Belgium as an example. She was an Belgian woman who was given admission to be euthanized after suffering from depression from her childhood. The con side is arguing that Laura should not have had the choice to decide on her fate because she was just feeling bad about their current predicament. Her depression may have been treatable, but it was her to decide upon that, not other people. One should be able to decide how to treat oneself, and viewing death as absolutely negative is not rational. It's a choice you can make. You will lost consciousness forever. There is nothing immoral or bad about that.
Reformist

Con

I would state no that Laura should not be allowed to kill herself

There are many reasons why we should not let people allow themselves to just die unless they have a condition that is untreatable and they cannot live with it

Ive given you many reasons above why life can improve but they just need time

But ill state my secondary reason as well

We as a society cannot condone or encourage the act of death. Death is wrong and should not be looked at with ease or even a way out

Doing that will cause more deaths in the US that could've have been prevented. Countless people will throw away their lives for things that if they grew up and looked back on would look pointless

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
philipisbad

Pro

What you are saying is that even though Laura was suffering from great misery from her childhood, tried everything she could, but still should be forced to live because some people live in a fairyland where things will somehow magically get better. She suffered her whole life, for more than 20 years. You are stating that she should live more torturous life because she may have some chance to get better. That is absurd, since it may just not. There is no certainty in life, and it should be up to the person to decide to take a gamble or choose a safe way out of the torturous misery.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Death is not necessary wrong. Death is a loss of consciousness. It's as same as sleeping, but death just lasts forever. Death is death. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Reformist

Con

It isn't that I don't feel anything for Laura

It is because that if you allow this behavior, sucidies will go up tremendously

I understand Laura's situation but death should NEVER be the answer

Literally try anything else but practically killing yourself? No.

There are many methods of treatments for depression (Psychology, Meds, Counseling with Family)

Death shouldn't be one of those methods

Basic summary: Euthansia should never be allowed because it would cause a snowball reaction of tremendous suicide rates, There are many other methods for dealing with depression like psychology, meds, Counseling with Family

Vote Reformist!
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by NoItsNot 1 year ago
NoItsNot
Why does physical take presence over mental pain? If someone is in just as much mental pain that they could be in physically, then shouldn't it be their right to die then? If their mental pain cannot be reduced then shouldn't they get the same right as patients who's physical pain cannot be reduced?
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Good Debate man

Wouldve won if that vote wasnt removed but ah well. GD
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Good Debate man

Wouldve won if that vote wasnt removed but ah well. GD
Posted by philipisbad 1 year ago
philipisbad
Let's me be candid.
What I feel is that life is not gift, it's imposition. Death is also imposition. I just believe in the right to make death a choice, not an imposition.
I don't believe restoring to death is necessary bad. Death means loss of consciousness. Nothing is certain in life, and one don't have to assume that life can and will get better. Therefore, I don't see no problem with suicide rate going up.
Posted by LearnLiveLove 1 year ago
LearnLiveLove
I don't have voting privileges yet. I would have voted for reformist

Although I had agreed with philipisbad, reading reformist's side changed my view. I understand what you are saying about Laura, Philip and it is sad that life didn't get better for her but Euthanasia shouldn't be given to everyone. I don't think you saw the consequences of having the government allow the availability of Euthanasia to everyone. Maybe if you had elaborated on how we would be allowed to have Euthanasia a little more I would have different thoughts. That's just my opinion though. You both did great! :-) Have a nice day.
Posted by philipisbad 1 year ago
philipisbad
If euthanasia is considered killing of someone to relieve them of their pain, this makes sense.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I think you should look up the definition for Euthanasia
No votes have been placed for this debate.