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

Euthanasia should be legal in all states!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 2/19/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 901 times Debate No: 70329
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




There are two kinds of euthanasia, Active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is when a person does something to help you die. Passive euthanasia is when a person doesn"t do something to help you die; they stop helping to keep you alive.
I think both kinds should be legal in all states.
Some people have to die in pain. Why do they have to feel the pain in such a long time, if they could die peacefully?
Of course I think there should be some "demands". I only think it should be very sick people who gets help to die.
A lot of teenagers commit suicide. I DON"T think they should get help to die, just because they have a bad time I their life. Teenagers are young and a lot can happen to them in the future. It"s different with old people, who is sick and just want to give up their life, and just want to die. So let euthanasia be legal in all states!


Withholding treatment for non functioning brains is legal already. One aspect of what you state here that is not covered is the people that can be helped by those that are in contact with a terminally ill person. BTW, you never stipulated any criteria other than "some "demands," so I must ask you what are these 'demands' you speak of? & what level of pain before one says it's too much & poof, they volunteer to die. You do not specify anything really, so please clarify this OK? People do not necessarily have to die in pain. There are many drugs out there to help in these instances.

Different people react differently to pain, disease, injury, etc. & many times people are touched by those that I think you want to include in your 'euthanasia' group. Who are we to be selfish with our own suffering when others can see our strength & model themselves from it. People nowadays want to quit too easily when things get tough. Just another example here. (I preface this with not knowing what criteria you deem acceptable for euthanasia, so once we establish that, we'll have better direction).

I must end this round because there is not enough of specifics in your opening argument to see the direction you are attempting to follow.
Debate Round No. 1


Of course people cannot just says, "I want to die now".
I know drugs can take a lot of the pain, but a lot of sick people stop with taking their drugs because they want to die! Why let them die in pain?? Why not make a deal with the sick persons family? If the family say "Ok let my dad or mom die in peacefully". No one will ever see someone from his or her families die in pain.
The patient can take drugs themselves, while the family holding the patients hand, so the patient fell save.
Today patients can die, while the family not is there with the patient. The family don"t have a chance to say goodbye.
I think all human being have rights to decide how and when to die, without commit suicide. Instead of all these people who commit suicide, they can talk with a doctor about active euthanasia, and get an executing.


You seem to keep going back to pain as an your main reason for euthanasia. (Please correct me if I am wrong). Your question of "Why let them die in pain?? "Causing deaths through efforts to reduce pain is very different than administering overdoses with the intent to end lives. Pain relief treatment is not euthanasia and giving increasing doses of narcotics can be incompetent medical practice " at a certain point different pain relief modalities can be required. Unfortunately, some physicians" medical knowledge is substandard in this regard," Margaret Somerville, director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University"
It goes on to further clarify with, ""If we were to go down the route they are talking about, it would create more confusion," says Schadenberg, who believes, if the College"s proposal became law, doctors would be under more scrutiny when patients on pain medication die. "Why did they use that high amount? Did they use it to kill the pain or kill the patient?"
(US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Search. Oct 19, 2009)

From The Life Resources Charitable Trust with regards to pain as a reason for early death: "Hard cases make bad laws: Euthanasia is usually promoted by those who have had a loved one die in agony, without the benefits of good palliative care. The answer is not to change the law, but rather improve standards of care".

"Voluntary euthanasia always becomes involuntary: The 1990 Remmelink Report commissioned by the Dutch government confirms the inevitable slide into flouting legal safeguards." (The Life Resources Charitable Trust, 2011)

Legislation will numb public conscience: The law is a powerful educator of public conscience. People cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted. The Nazi euthanasia program revealed the desensitizing of those involved.

One reason many do not consider that is similar to the abortion issue is: Personal autonomy important, but never absolute: A person's decision to end their life, or have an abortion, can have profound, often lifelong effects on the lives of others. (The mother, father & family with abortion), and with family there may be guilt, anger and bitterness felt by those left behind.

To answer your questions of, "Why not make a deal with the sick persons family? If the family say "Ok let my dad or mom die in peacefully," is that patients are denied final stage of growth. Those involved in hospice work often see healing of family relationships and rediscovery of mutual love. Words are spoken that help sustain those left behind. (The Life Resources Charitable Trust 2011).

Another issue regarding the legalization of euthanasia is physician ethics. The old proverbial "do no harm." The phrase primum non nocere is greatly cherished by the profession. It is the first "golden rule" that we transmit to our junior colleagues. Another related but less well known phrase, used by medical luminaries such as Thomas Syndenham36 and James Makittrick Adair37 is juvantia et laedenti. It is derived from the Latin verbs iuvo ("help") and laedo ("hurt"). I propose that in our deliberations about euthanasia, we keep in our collective imagination the notion of juvantia et laedentia: "things that [can] help and things that [can] harm." & to go a bit further "A physician's assistance in suicide can indeed be construed as helping the patient: helping in the sense of being an ally in the patient's quest to fulfill personal goals, or helping by buttressing individual autonomy. However, there are also features of such action that can be qualified as harmful: harmful by sowing confusion in trainees about the conceptual core of traditional clinical methods, or harmful by eroding respect for absolute moral values such as "do not kill." (The Permanente Journal, Fall 2011).

"Also euthanasia undermines medical excellence: As the Dutch experience reveals, euthanasia doctors tend to be uninterested in palliative care. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia, than learn techniques for caring for the dying." (The Life Resources Charitable Trust, 2011).

From Professor David E. Richmond MB ChB MHPEd. MD FRACP FRCP Professor Emeritus David Richmond is a practicing physician in Geriatric Medicine. He was the inaugural Professor of Geriatric Medicine in the University of Auckland, and Assistant Dean in the Auckland Faculty of Medicine. He is a past president of the New Zealand Society for Geriatrics and was a member of the Prime Ministerial Task force on Positive Aging. He assisted with writing the constitution for the Research Ethics Committee at Auckland Hospital, and chaired that committee for its first three years. He was a founding member of the Health Research Council's Ethics Committee. He introduced the teaching of clinical ethics to the Auckland School of Medicine, has taught courses in Bioethics and published several papers on aspects of Medical Ethics. He currently chairs the Board of the HOPE Foundation, a charitable trust dedicated to fostering research into aging and the effects of aging on society:
" It is not reasonable to introduce radical legislation on the basis of the perceived needs of a tiny proportion of the population.
It is not compassionate to elevate the rights of a small minority over the rights of the majority.
It would not be consistent with the nation's stance on capital punishment.
Its practice could not be confined within "strict guidelines" as its proponents assert.
It introduces a conflict of interest for medical practitioners who will be expected to execute it, and will change the ethos of the health system from preserving life to providing death.
The philosophical stance that allows euthanasia to be contemplated at all is flawed and dangerous.
It is the wrong solution for the majority of people who might request it.
It has the potential to reduce interest in and funding for palliative care and the hospice movement.
It does not guarantee a "good death".
Legalizing euthanasia gives too much power to the medical profession." (The Life Resources Charitable Trust 2011).

Please excuse some of the improper text formatting regarding the quotations. As we know, 4 lines or more are to be indented. I failed to do that because of limited character space.
Debate Round No. 2


debatehanne forfeited this round.


Thank you for the opportunity to do some research and tackle this topic of euthanasia. I have learned more than I would have had I not debated you. & that's what this is all about I would hope.

Hopefully nothing serious stopped you from continuing this debate. (health-wise). I wish you well.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
TBR. 3 points to Pro (arguments), 1 point to Con (conduct). Removed because: (1) TBR seems to have voted for the wrong side on arguments: he said Con won arguments, but then voted Pro; (2) the explanation for the argument point is insufficient. The RFD just says "argument - to Con" and then says Pro was slow out the gate and only had one strong point. That doesn't explain why Con did a better job.

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro ff a round | Argument - to Con. Pro had issues getting this rolling, and only one strong point. | Sources - I would have given this to Con, but you need to footnote or link your source material.

-bluesteel (voting mod)
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
debatehanne, Just for the future, please do some research rather than emotional responses. Yes, debates can be emotional, altho it is our job to convince the audience & each other, that our side make better sense than the other & even learn something we did not know previously from the opposing side. You may want to Google some articles with whatever you are to debate to get backup data to strengthen your side. Anything that we say here that is not universally known is taken as opinion & does not mean as much as cited work from professionals in the particular field, or respected written material, especially scholarly written journals. Don't forget to cite your references & check your grammar & spelling. Yep, points are taken off for making errors. Good luck.
No votes have been placed for this debate.