Euthanasia should be legal
Debate Rounds (5)
-Euthanasia: the painless killing of a someone for the purpose of reducing suffering.
I accept! I won't post an argument now but I just want to make a point clear - if it is legal, it would be regulated and there would be laws as to who can and cannot be put down. It wouldn't be as simple as "I want to die," and then someone injects you with whatever and you die.
I'm hoping we can agree that it would be regulated.
My arguments are mainly sociological, and that legalisation of euthanasia would be detrimental to society.
If we allow euthanasia to be legalised, we state as a society that life only has extrinsic, not intrinsic value. What I mean by this is that euthanasia legalisation makes a statement that life is only good insofar as we have use for it or if it benefits society, as opposed to the morally preferable state of valuing life intrinsically; it is good in itself and we should value it even if the owner is ill, elderly or a burden on society. According to most ethical theories it is beneficial to society to value life intrinsically, not extrinsically and so euthanasia is a negative step on the path to an Utopian society.
My second point is that euthanasia is simply unnecessary. Pain relief is so advanced nowadays that pain can be relieved without resorting to killing. Why legalise something detrimental to society when it is unneeded?
Furthermore, legalising euthanasia is not productive to modern medical progress. If it becomes commonplace for people to commit suicide when suffering from a particular disease then what motivation is there to find a cure for it?
Finally, people's moral compass is very much influenced by law. For example, if tax evasion was to be legalised then people would feel less morally guilty for doing it. Therefore, if we legalise euthanasia then suicide will not be considered as immoral as it is now. The terrible consequence of this would be that suicide is seen as an acceptable potential solution to hardship, and therefore more people at the depths of depression will commit suicide. People also have an inclination for martyrdom; the sacrificing of one's life for the benefit of others. With no legal prevention of this, elderly people will feel expected, pressurised or simply altruistically inclined to seek euthanasia when they can. People hate being a burden and so will often opt to 'go quietly' instead of relying on their state or family. This would be a tragic waste of the value and wisdom that the elderly can give to the young. I personally know an old lady who often drifts into suicidal thoughts and, given the legal allowance, would not hesitate to be euthanised when she feels this way. However, she can also be very happy with her family and friends at times, and all this would be snuffed out by euthanasia.
Fair enough, almost everything has loopholes, however exploiting these loopholes can be considered illegal, and therefore the person doing so is still breaking the law, something they could do now, if euthanasia is illegal. However I'm sure you brought up good points so we'll get right to that!
I agree with you, even if someone is not "beneficial" to society, they still have a purpose to being alive. However the idea of euthanasia is that it's not someone else's decision to decide your fate - it's your own. Unless you're incapable of communicating your feelings and thoughts, you decide your own fate, nobody is going to kill you because they think you may not be happy, or are not beneficial to society. It's the person's decision if they wish to stay alive or not. If I'm sick, tired of life, don't have friends, and just cannot find anything that makes me happy, we could still argue that my life has purpose. However this is really irrelevant if I don't want it to continue. Your moral perspective on my life is meaningless to me, as I'm the one going through "Hell," and you're the one who just doesn't want to see someone die.
Whether or not someone's life has "purpose" is irrelevant, as it's up to that person (and that person alone) to make the decision if they wish to continue their life in agony or not. And as long as it abides by the rules put in place by the government, the organization that would legalize euthanasia, there would be nothing wrong with being put out of their misery.
Euthanasia =/= Unnecessary
First of all, you have not shown how euthanasia is detrimental to society. You've stated that you consider it to be because life, whether sick or depressed or in a comatose state, is always beneficial to society. However this idea is simply your idea, which I agree with to an extent, as life can be amazing and wonderful and important in society's growth, but for someone to actually be beneficial to society, they have to want to be. Sure, there are heavy antidepressants, pain killers, and other ways to help people, such as meditation sessions, however unfortunately this is all irrelevant if one person doesn't want to be a part of this world anymore. Why are you so hung up on making this person want to be alive? He figures he's better off not being alive and seeing what's on "the other side" instead of hating his existence on Earth.
You're the first person who I've seen bring up the medical point, and it is a damn good one, so thanks for opening up a new topic, for me anyway. However having the option to end your life instead of seek treatment isn't going to cause every single sick person to off themselves. Please keep in mind this is just an option - it won't be mandatory to kill yourself if you're not pleased with the current situation. A lot of this boils down to moral values, and if someone wishes to end it all, it's their decision to make... if the laws allow it. The main point relating to the disease aspect is that if doctors wish to continue tests to see if they can cure the disease, they still can, even if the patient is put down. With the medicine we have today, we're able to contain the virus or bacteria or whatever outside of the host's body, so even without a person with the virus, we're still able to conduct tests and research on it.
This should be irrelevant. If people become less affected by suicide, then good. The way society is evolving is in such a way that moral values should be logically thought out before acting upon them. The death of a loved one will always be upsetting, however if we know they chose this path, and aren't suffering anymore, there should be no logical reason to be upset about it. The people who give up easily are one of two things - and I hate being blunt about it but I kind of have to... 1.) Unproductive to society - they give up at the first sign of hardship, and if they wish to be in a "better" place, they wouldn't have helped society anyway. They're happy and we lost someone who didn't want to help us anyway. Or 2.) They've tried everything they can to be happy and be productive, and it isn't working out. Either an illness has caused them to live in immense pain, or a mental illness or depression has caused them to live feeling absolutely worthless, or like nothing, and they just can't handle the incredible amount of pain or pressure and just overall bad feelings.
Keep in mind with your example and others like it, that it wouldn't be euthanasia that caused her death. It would be her own choice. She wants to now, she would want to if euthanasia was legalised. If you say she does bring great joy to her family, I'm sure she would be able to gain their acceptance of her choice if she does decide to end it all. Also, this may be very selfish on our behalf, as we expect the elderly to suffer and dislike their existence simply so we can benefit from their knowledge.
Also, judging by how The Netherlands have legalised euthanasia, the elderly wouldn't be able to end it all simply because they're old. There would need to be a lot more going on.
As you can see in The Netherlands, euthanasia is legal and regulated, with several heavy requirements to follow through . The point that stands out for me is #5 - There must be no other reasonable solutions to the problem. This implies that if a "cure" is available, or if it is possible to continue medical research and procedures on the subject, the chance of being accepted for euthanizing is significantly lower. I'm sure we would see similar laws if euthanasia is legalised in North America.
I think I've brought up most of what I wanted to say in response to your arguments, so on to you! And thanks for a good first round.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying in regards to the intrinsic/extrinsic social valuing of life. I am not saying that we should keep people alive because we can construe purpose for their lives, I am saying that as a society we should preserve life because it is life, irrespective of the presence of purpose. On a society-wide level, legalising euthanasia establishes that life is only valuable insofar as it is desired, which would make it extrinsic. This is a poisonous attitude to any civil society as it does not respect the human individual, only what they can do or provide.
"Why are you so hung up on making this person want to be alive?"
Because it is a loving action to do, helping someone find enjoyment in life is a better solution than killing them. I am arguing that it would be a negative step to allow people to choose to die when they wish. People may currently hate their existence on earth but death is permanent, once you are euthanised there is no going back. Honestly I find it hard to imagine that someone depressed enough to be feeling suicidal has the right mental capacity to make such a huge and irreversible choice. If someone is so depressed that they don't want to live anymore, then we should help them change their mind and see the endless potential that life has. As Jules Verne said, 'where there is life there is hope', death is the ultimate way to 'give up' which seems irrational in a world where medical science is advancing so rapidly that cures for seemingly incurable illnesses could just be months away at any given time.
I'm sure that Stephen Hawking, when he first descended into invalidity, often decided that he would rather die than live with with ALS. If euthanasia had been legal he could have very possibly been killed and the world would have lost one of the greatest physicists of the century.
"However having the option to end your life instead of seek treatment isn't going to cause every single sick person to off themselves."
Of course, not everyone will choose to be euthanised. But in the Netherlands it is increasingly becoming the norm for cancer sufferers to seek euthanasia instead of fighting through it (1). People with serious illnesses generally aren't particularly optimistic, and many people will be killed by euthanasia whereas if it was not an option they could have survived and lived fulfilling lives, despite them not even considering a good outcome when they were in the depths of their suffering.
"With the medicine we have today, we're able to contain the virus or bacteria or whatever outside of the host's body, so even without a person with the virus, we're still able to conduct tests and research on it."
True, but there would be little motivation to do so. If it became normal to be euthanised when suffering from a deadly disease then it would seem less important to find cures. Why is this? Because the point of a cure is to prevent death. If people are asking for death when suffering from said disease, what is the point in finding a cure when many people are content to do without?
"If people become less affected by suicide, then good. The way society is evolving is in such a way that moral values should be logically thought out before acting upon them. The death of a loved one will always be upsetting, however if we know they chose this path, and aren't suffering anymore, there should be no logical reason to be upset about it."
Suicide is one of the most tragic things that exists in this world; that someone can become so depressed and despairing that they decide to destroy their life. It is logical to assert the immorality of suicide because if it was not, depressed people will not feel obstructed to end their life, despite depression being temporary and mentally-incapacitating to the extent that they cannot be responsible for such a huge decision, which suicide is. I very much doubt that you could find a single person who considered suicide, changed their mind and regretted doing so. Sexual consent is only valid when the partner is in the right mental capacity, so why should suicide-consent be different? On a metaphysical scale, it is also an assumption that death is preferable to suffering whilst alive. The experience of death (or lack thereof) is eschatologically verifiable; so how then can suicide or euthanasia be an informed decision when we only know what one of the alternatives is like?
"they wouldn't have helped society anyway. They're happy and we lost someone who didn't want to help us anyway"
That is what I was saying in round 1, legalising euthanasia makes people value human life simply because of the value or help they provide to society, not simply because it is life and is good in and of itself.
"Keep in mind with your example and others like it, that it wouldn't be euthanasia that caused her death. It would be her own choice. She wants to now, she would want to if euthanasia was legalised. If you say she does bring great joy to her family, I'm sure she would be able to gain their acceptance of her choice if she does decide to end it all. Also, this may be very selfish on our behalf, as we expect the elderly to suffer and dislike their existence simply so we can benefit from their knowledge."
The thing is, she goes through a few weeks feeling suicidal, but then recovers and lives life happily for a few months. If we acted upon her cognitively-doubtful decision when she was depressed then she would be deprived of all the happiness she gets when not under the influence of mental illness. Ultimately, euthanasia is far too big a choice to be assumed to be rationally made by people who are mentally sick.
"Also, judging by how The Netherlands have legalised euthanasia, the elderly wouldn't be able to end it all simply because they're old. There would need to be a lot more going on."
Yes, they wouldn't be able to end their life simply due to old age, but the vast majority of old people have some ailment or another that could be exploited to justify them seeking to end their life out of martyrdom.
"As you can see in The Netherlands, euthanasia is legal and regulated, with several heavy requirements to follow through . The point that stands out for me is #5 - There must be no other reasonable solutions to the problem. This implies that if a "cure" is available, or if it is possible to continue medical research and procedures on the subject, the chance of being accepted for euthanizing is significantly lower. I'm sure we would see similar laws if euthanasia is legalised in North America."
Theoretically the law works satisfactorily, but evidence would suggest that the Netherlands is sliding down a slippery slope towards more liberal euthanasia laws. (2) This source suggests that we cannot ring-fence voluntary euthanasia killings without overflows into non-voluntary euthanasia.
The simple fact is that doctors are only human; giving them the extraordinary power to grant others life and death does not make them into responsible moral agents. Doctors are physicians not ethicists and cannot be relied upon to relate to suicidal people's wishes and inclinations because they simply aren"t trained for it. This is why in the Netherlands doctors are increasingly being persuaded by relatives and patients to bend the rules or even outright break them, because doctors aren"t professionally endowed to judge non-medical issues.
Continuing on the subject of doctors, to ask them to kill patients is to violate the Hippocratic Oath, the vow that maintains the integrity of their whole profession. When people train to be doctors they say that they want to save lives, not destroy them.
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words! Same goes to you.
Thanks for clarifying. You make the false assumption that if euthanasia is legal, life is not only invaluable when not desired, but society only respects what a person can provide for everyone. This is not the case where euthanasia is legal, and would not be the case if it was legal throughout the world. Nobody would have the power to kill someone if the person doesn't want to die. That is still murder. So no matter how "useless" some people feel a person is, it doesn't matter. I'm sure loads of people consider certain people "useless" now, yet those people don't commit suicide. Why would it change if it was legal? You die anyway, you don't have to face consequences. The society does respect the human individual, the only difference is that the option to kill yourself (under ideal circumstances) is now available. Other than personal moral values, there's nothing wrong if someone chooses to kills themselves even if it's because they feel unproductive. People die all the time. People who don't want to die do die, and people who do want to die cannot legally and painlessly (for the most part).
So not only is other people's view on your life irrelevant, but society most likely would not turn into some corporate working machine, only accepting people who contribute 110% to society.
You're right, helping someone enjoy life is much better than killing them. But what if you can't? What if they can not enjoy life? But remember from The Netherlands, there are still steps taken in order to ensure this is truly the person's wish, as well as rehabilitation programs, anti-depression programs, health care, etc. - All geared toward helping the person overcome thoughts of suicide. The only difference is if they still hate life, they can escape it all, painlessly - which I don't see to be a big problem.
You have inspirational ideas, and I do agree we should help people see how good life can be, but what if they just don't want to see it and just want to be set free? You want to deny them the right to be at peace and not suffer (in multiple ways) because you think they can be happy? "I think you can do this, even if you've already tried multiple times, therefore I won't let you do what you want to do"? Is that what you're saying? Why is "giving up" such a bad thing? Because you think death is bad? Because you think they have more to offer? Because you think they can think otherwise in the future? Because you think... Get my point? What about them? What about the person who actually feels like they would be better off not on Earth? You're trying to help, that's fantastic, but it's their lives. You're right, the person could be something (I love your example) spectacularly important, however with your example, Stephen Hawking had an incredibly intelligence by the time he was diagnosed with ALS, and was able to continue to use it and build on it without being discouraged very often. Although he did "attempt suicide" by not breathing, even Stephen Hawking agrees with me (or the other way around) that assisted death (or euthanasia) should be legal .
"They could have survived..." 'could' being the key word there. If someone wants to die, they've thought about it, believe me. It would take a lot more than "it might take a while for treatment to kick in" for someone to want to end their life. Keep in mind, death is a 100% guarantee to stop suffering, whereas treatment is not, and you do continue to suffer for some time, whether you recover or not. To some people, this is a pretty good idea.
You do (once again) bring up a great point with the motivation to cure diseases. You're wrong about the point of a cure. The point of the cure is to prevent disease. There would still be lives to save if some day we came up with a Cancer vaccination, and that can still be done even if current Cancer patients choose not to live through it. I would bet a lot of money that if people had the option to kill themselves if they contracted a bad disease, doctors wouldn't just give up and let them all die. They'd keep working for a cure. When people become doctors, they do so to save lives. They are the kinds of people who wouldn't want to see anyone kill themselves because a cure isn't present at the time. They would keep researching.
I agree that depression and disparity are horrible. How is relieving oneself of that depression and disparity horrible? Suicide is an escape. An answer. A permanent answer, yes, but it is an answer. Your argument is basically "you can be so much if you don't commit suicide, so don't do it!" What if this person doesn't want to do it? Every person who has committed suicide has done exactly what they wanted to do - no longer exist. Both the victims of suicide and "victors" of beating suicidal thoughts get what they want in the end. "Death" is the lack of a functioning body and conscience. No electrons firing, no neurons receiving (I hope I got those right), nothing. Do you remember before you were a sperm? No you don't. That's death for you. Nothing. Last time I checked, "nothing" is a hell of a lot better than suffering. However your argument about the person being in the right mental capacity makes sense, check out the Netherlands -
Helpfulness in Society
The reason I brought up values in society is because you did, and this was the point I was countering. This is one little point, which does/would not turn into the only reason we would value human life.
In your example, she does not know she missed out. For all she knows, she died happy, fulfilling her wish of death. The family also doesn't know, as she's dead, and they know she dies happy. "What if?" Is a pretty big question and can really be asked to anything. Abortion is legal. "What if the zygote grew up to be a scientist who hooks a satellite into Saturn's orbit?" Well, then that would have been cool, but hopefully someone else will, and abortion is still legal (in lots of places).
Once again, what's so wrong with someone wanting to be put out of their misery? It's pretty selfish not wanting someone to die because you'd be sad.
The doctors are not the ones who make the decisions, the doctors are the ones who follow through with the patient's decisions, if the law allows it. The doctors are not the ones granting life and death. The patient makes the decision to die or not.
You bring up a great point with the Hippocratic Oath, however what's more destructive; Suffering with depression, pain, misery, hate, loneliness, and hardship? Or... nothing? Ending a life is not destroying a life.
Thanks a lot for some good points, I'm glad we're having a good debate! It's not too often you see a good topic with worthwhile conversations.
However, people can only make rational decisions when in a completely sane state of mind. In cases of depression, one is not sane and so cannot make rational decisions. Consequently, as people seeking euthanasia have depression (in the vast majority of cases) their decision is not rational. We should not allow people to make irrational decisions if doing so would seriously harm them, as euthanasia essentially is insofar as it kills.
My second point is that it is all well and good to listen to the patient and the patient alone, but the elderly and disabled can be very susceptible to persuasion from friends, family or the media. If euthanasia was legalised it is naive to presume that people will decide to die purely based on their own intuitions, in the Netherlands, the amount of people choosing euthanasia per year has doubled in 10 years (1) yet the amount of people with terminal illnesses has not significantly increased. This would heavily suggest that people are being encouraged, either by observing an increasing trend or feeling obliged to conform to social norms, to be euthanised. If euthanasia is only the patient's choice then there would not be a significant rise. Ultimately, a euthanasia law based on the total autonomy of the individual is impractical and Utopian because it ignores the fact that the large majority of people are readily influenced by other people, especially family and friends who may have ulterior motives.
On a side point, how can a doctor tell if the patient wants to die because of pain or if they want to die because they feel they have a duty to save their family money? The elderly have very little security as it is, legalising euthanasia could be construed as a hint that it is acceptable to have euthanasia and therefore some people will come to expect elderly people to seek euthanasia. This could easily lead to people wanting the elderly to die and thinking them selfish to continue consuming resources. Is this a society that values the elderly?
"I agree that depression and disparity are horrible. How is relieving oneself of that depression and disparity horrible?"
Because it is not needed. Depression is temporary and so by committing suicide these people are seeking a disproportionate solution for something that can be cured. Your argument that they can't regret suicide if they're dead is not valid though as it can be reduced to the absurd; using your logic I could let a lunatic jump off a cliff claiming 'I was right not to stop him, he wanted to jump off a cliff and it's not like they can regret his decision now he's dead'.
However, this is contrary to what seems obviously the right thing to do. We should stop a non-sane (I don't think it's entirely apt to call them insane) person making a decision that seriously harms them because we would not take their desire seriously; they are not in the right state of mind to make sensible decisions.
"So not only is the person offered help, they are given plenty of time to consider it, and even if they don't want it, it is most likely highly recommended"
Just because they are given time to consider, as well as the facts, does not mean that they can process it to make a rational decision. You cannot give a lunatic a book on science and expect them to then make rational scientific judgements. Also, if euthanasia is 'highly recommended' then how does that not influence a patient? If someone is undecided as to whether to seek euthanasia, someone highly recommending it could easily persuade them to do so.
We stray into metaphysics here, but I think it is worth noting that we cannot be sure that death is an experience of nothing. I'm not going to postulate different afterlives here but I'm just highlighting the assumption you make.
""What if?" Is a pretty big question and can really be asked to anything. Abortion is legal. "What if the zygote grew up to be a scientist who hooks a satellite into Saturn's orbit?" Well, then that would have been cool, but hopefully someone else will, and abortion is still legal (in lots of places)."
For the record, I do not agree with abortion. However, if we can envisage a good outcome for someone who does not have the mental capacity to realise it, we should guide them towards that outcome. If I were suffering under a mental illness then I would want people to stop me from making decisions I have not rationally made.
"The doctors are not the ones granting life and death. The patient makes the decision to die or not."
Well, in the Netherlands the law states that the doctor has to approve the euthanasia request, so they still have the role of granting the request. (2)
Mister_Man forfeited this round.
Many apologies for missing my round, I was away for the night and thought I'd be able to respond on my phone or another computer but was unable to do so. Hopefully you (and the voters) can see past this and at the very most deduct me a conduct point, which I would not complain about at all. Considering this is the last round, I will not bring up any new arguments, and I will only create rebuttals for yours.
State of Mind
Using your own logic, one can argue that if someone were to have any feelings at all, they would not be in the right state of mind to make an informed decision. Just because depression is an excessive feeling of sadness, guilt, misery, any bad feeling, doesn't mean that person is unable to make rational decisions. The end result to being euthanized due to depression would be a good one, or at least the person would think it's a good one, considering that's what they want to happen, and they would no longer be depressed. That's really as much as they need - knowing that they will be better off dead, and fulfilling their hopes of actually being dead. The only thing that can be argued is that we (the non-depressed people) can think of ways that they can be happy, but like I've said before, we aren't them.
I also can not for the life of me find anything that says the majority of people seeking euthanasia suffer depression - the only thing I found was simply saying that there "cases exist where doctors administer assisted suicide for people determined to be "chronically" depressed" . Nothing for numbers, percentages, death rate, etc.
Just because not everyone seeking euthanasia due to illness or physical pain doesn't mean they are seeking it because someone is telling them to. You provided a source for the fact that euthanasia rates are going up, however you didn't provide a source for your more important point. You're saying if euthanasia was legal, more and more people wouldn't want to be euthanized? I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion.
I'm not usually the kind of guy to beg for sources, but you claimed that "the fact that the large majority of people are readily influenced by other people," without backing that up with a single source. So I'd have to dismiss that as an anecdotal argument, although I agree that lots of people do base their actions on how others would react, you failed to explain how this can be related to euthanasia - a much more serious action.
Like I said before, the doctor does not decide who lives and dies, he simply does what is allowed by law. If euthanasia is legal, and somebody wants to die, and fulfills all legal terms, the doctor should not start asking his own questions or questioning what he's doing. Someone wants to die, let them die. It would be a different story if they didn't want to die, but if someone is coercing them to accept euthanizing, a criminal investigation can easily be executed.
"Could," is the key word in your ideas. Some people could expect the elderly to accept euthanizing, but that number could be very low, as I have not seen any sources claim that anyone is being euthanized for someone else's gain. And finally, this comes down to moral values again. "Is this a society that values the elderly?" Why sure. However you brought up a good reason why the elderly should be put down - they're consuming resources. They're taking up money, time, medical staff, medical machinery, and much more. Some people would be sad, some people would not. Would we lose anything as a society if the elderly died a bit earlier if they weren't contributing anything to society? Sure, some people would be sad for a bit, but that's about it. And if we want to advance the human race, legalising euthanasia and not spending time and money on non-contributing members of society is not beneficial in the grand scheme of things.
Depression being temporary is once again only beneficial to us if the person decides to continue with the euthanasia process. He/she thinks they're in a better place, and that's all that matters. If we can talk the person into continuing to try to be happy, great, if not, then they can escape. No matter the outcome, the depressed person is satisfied. You're turning it into you being dissatisfied, and you're forgetting about the actual person seeking euthanizing. If someone is not in the "right state of mind" to make sensible decisions, they still made a decision, and they do feel it is the right one, whether or not you think it's a good decision or not. And by "they can't regret it," I mean they're dead - the last thing they though was "I'm glad I'm going through with this."
I wasn't referring to euthanasia being highly recommended, I was referring to treatment if they're in a mental state that isn't considered healthy. Being given time to consider even works for your argument, considering you say people with mental health issues, or people who are currently unable to make rational decisions based on their current mental state, can't currently make rational decisions, so give 'em some time!
You're right that I do make an assumption on death, however my assumption is based on calculated decisions, reasoning, and my idea (as well as scientists' ideas) of how the brain works. Electrons firing and neurons receiving is (most likely) what creates a conscience. Without that, we have no conscience, and there is nothing. However you're right, this is still just an idea, as we have really no way of figuring out first hand what happens after we die.
The difference between you not wanting yourself to make an irrational decision if you're not in the right frame of mind, and making a decision while being in that frame of mind, is that while you're making that decision, under imperfect mental health, you think it's a good one, and you do die thinking/"knowing" you've made the right decision. If I all of a sudden wanted to die, I'd hope I could, as that's what I want. I mean obviously I'd fight the urge and seek help, but I would know what I want because... well, that's what I want.
If we base our ideas of euthanization off moral values and what society gains/loses from the person's euthanization process, we have one final conclusion - we feel bad if someone dies, but it's their choice. Most of the time they save money and time by accepting death. And a combination of both; we think they could have done more, although they saved us money and time and medical machinery, and in the end it was their choice, and no matter the mental state, they died happy and "knowing" what they did is what they wanted.
As I said before, I won't bring up any new arguments, and I do apologize for missing the last round. I'm glad we had a good debate, I wasn't expecting something as well thought-out and intriguing as this.
So thanks again for a good debate! Glad we could actually get something done here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year 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:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: ff, but I felt Pro's points about people having rights to their body (the crux of this debate) was hardly refuted. It was very, very difficult for con. Good debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 1 year 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: While both sides made good arguments I have to give the edge to Pro. Con did make some novel arguments, e.g. "Continuing on the subject of doctors, to ask them to kill patients is to violate the Hippocratic Oath" and " in the Netherlands, the amount of people choosing euthanasia per year has doubled in 10 years (1) yet the amount of people with terminal illnesses has not significantly increased. This would heavily suggest that people are being encouraged, either by observing an increasing trend or feeling obliged to conform to social norms, to be euthanised." Nonetheless their argument for removing personal autonomy is ultimately indefensible and Pro did a solid job of pointing this out. Both sides did a good job with rebuttals however, and this was a very good debate by both sides.
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.