The Instigator
Caernarvon
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
oscar_grigg
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Euthanasia should be banned!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 10/28/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 199 times Debate No: 81665
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Caernarvon

Con

There are many, mainly religious people who believe that doctor assisted suicide or "Euthanasia" should be banned. Unfortunately for those who suffer from chronic painful illnesses these people are in positions of power. I am of the opinion that the decision to end ones life in a calm peaceful way after years of suffering should be between the patient and the doctor not the doctor and a priest or the doctor and the state governor. Clearly the leader in Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg have recognised this. The patient needs to still be assessed by multiple doctors and seen as in pain and untreatable. This is the right way in my and many families of suffering people opinion. Instead of making them suffer just release them to their afterlife.
oscar_grigg

Pro

The opposition has not provided a definition of the topic, therefore I shall provide one for him. Euthanasia is also known as "mercy killing" and "doctor assisted suicide" and it involves the act of taking someone's life if they are terminally ill. I as the affirmative believe that it indeed should be banned, for the following reasons.

It is generally accepted as immoral
It is impractical to implement in the first place.
The general consensus would limit the application
Doctors can abuse power
Patients can abuse power
And I will lastly be reflecting on the state of mind of a person with a terminal illness.

Before I begin I would like to rebut the fact that the opposition is simply not arguing the topic, arguing against the current conditions of euthanasia laws simply does not promote or provide any evidence as to why it should not be banned, if anything, it argued against it.

To begin, I would like to speak about the general consensus on the standard of morality. As we all know, murder is bad, murder is a generally bad thing. Let's say, just as a completely hypothetical example, that 99.9% of people believe that murder is bad, next in our hypothetical scenario, an apparently "large percentage of religious" leaders according to my opponents view on the situation, which is completely inaccurate, suddenly decree that murder is now legal. Does this mean that murder is okay? The general consensus of people simply would not allow this, there would be outrage, uproar, riots, rebellions. Because no matter how hard you try, you can never change the fact that an estimated 75% of people believe that euthanasia is bad, regardless of religion, morals, even logic. People are still going to protest against legalising this, and it will fail.

Secondly, legalising this would simply allow doctors and patients alike, far too much power for their own good. I'm sure you yourself have heard about last year's "Murdering Doctor" headlines, the tale of a doctor turned serial killer, that murdered his elderly patients one by one. Do you really want a repeat of this scenario? Because statistically I can practically guarantee you that history is bound to repeat itself under these morally questionable circumstances. This also allows the patients too much power for their own good, to begin with this argument, I would like to present a statistic. In a study conducted in Oregon, USA. It was found that 66% of people who wanted to take part in euthanasia wished to do so because they believed that they were a burden to their family (http://www.life.org.nz...) Under the Dutch and other European countries laws of euthanasia, this would not be a viable reason, however, it goes to show how euthanasia can be and will be abused. Not only that, but a female doctor by the name of Doctor Laugh Hoits in Sweden did an experiment with her patients. On 50 terminal patients, she told them that euthanasia was an option, and 42 out of 50 asked for euthanasia, however, upon telling 50 other patients nothing, NONE of them asked for euthanasia. This proves that in a terminal illness position, people aren't looking for a way out necessarily, they're just looking for something, they're looking for control, and after the experiment, when the doctor asked the same 50 about palliative care programs, nearly all of them enthusiastically agreed, she quotes "...If you mention euthanasia, they will ask for it. If you mention palliative care, then that is what they will choose."

To conclude my first section of arguments, euthanasia should be banned because it is simply not necessary, all it does is allow the option for death which many choose not to take without suggestion, which links in with the idea of doctors power, the power of suggestion is an extreme one when placed in the frail context of the mind of the terminally ill, when offered any option, they will take it. And we as one and the same, humans, HAVE to prevent that from happening.
Debate Round No. 1
Caernarvon

Con

Caernarvon forfeited this round.
oscar_grigg

Pro

oscar_grigg forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Caernarvon

Con

Caernarvon forfeited this round.
oscar_grigg

Pro

oscar_grigg forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.