Euthanasia should be banned.
Debate Rounds (2)
""I shall give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel [...] I shall try to preserve life to the best of my ability."
Since Euthanasia is legal in some parts of the world, it massacres this oath, and the doctor-patient relationship.
I quote Canada"s Criminal code:
"241. Anyone who counsels a person [...] or aids [...] a person to commit suicide [...] is guilty of an indictable offence."
A dying patient may not be able to make a rational decision. (mental state)
(Imagine) A patient may have said they want euthanasia when they were nowhere near death; however, when faced with death they may change their mind but be incapable of telling anyone.
If there were better care for dying people, they might not demand Euthanasia.
People might be pushed into saying they wanted to be Euthanized by family that does not want to care for them.
The ending of a life is NEVER a doctor"s to take. Kill the pain. Not the patient. Murder.
My opponent case is easily countered by either a.) dismissing or revising the Hippocratic oath (as this sole justification seems rather arbitrary when considering the quality of life of millions) or still less controversially b.) that doctors need not administer active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia does not violated the Hippocratic oath or Canada's criminal code, so my opponent's resolution has already been adequately countered. I will still further this by suggesting the legitimate option of providing non-physicians whose sole responsibility would oversee and participate in active euthanasia. This successfully counters my opponents sole contention regarding the role of the doctor in euthanasia. I remind my opponent that no new evidence or contentions can be ethically introduced in the final round.
Following this, anything that a doctor does- including what he doesn't do which in this case would be not administering any active euthanasia meds, but rather being passive--- that is still breaking both the oath as they are not preserving life to the best of their ability. The Hippocratic oath is sworn in virtually all medical schools, institutions and then business.
This counters my opponents points regarding the oath and passive euthanasia.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Pro relied heavily on the Hippocratic oath, a little too heavily which served to be what cost her the debate. When Con proposed the idea of altering the Hippocratic oath, Pro failed to rebut that. This is evident when we see Con reiterate the point he made in the first round regarding the ethical soundness of the oath in our modern times. Pro needed to overcome this or at-least provide some form of rebuttal and never did, even though the opportunity was present in the final round. Due to Pro needing to overcome the challenges presented by Con, as is required from her BOP, and failing to do so, Con rightfully wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate. I would suggest that Pro, in the future, try to attack each argument your opponent makes. When in the Pro position, you can't leave any challenges left standing.
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.