The Instigator
simonkjaer
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
420NoScopeBlazin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Euthanasia should be legal

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: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 463 times Debate No: 70342
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

simonkjaer

Pro

Euthanasia is is the practice of ending someone's life in a relatively painless manner, and with their full consent. This is only done when the patient is terminally ill, and there are no cures for their illness and the patient is usually under unbearable pain.

This means that this is not suicide, this is a medical procedure, that is assisted by a physician who decides weather or not the patient are ill enough for euthanasia.
If a individual decides that they have so much pain that they can"t live with it, and that they would rather die than live with the pain until they die shouldn't they be allowed to do so?
420NoScopeBlazin

Con

People that are terminally ill should try to enjoy the last portion of their lives instead of deliberately ending it. Euthanasia is assisted murder and the doctors should be charged with said crime. The doctor took a Hippocratic oath to help their patients and to try to ease them into the unfortunate moment of them dying, not being the cause of said death. Who knows, before the person dies of the disease they are trying to avoid dying from by killing themselves, they may come out with a cure. That is my stance
Debate Round No. 1
simonkjaer

Pro

My opponent said that a doctor takes a Hippocratic Oath, but the Hippocratic Oath is from 400
B. C. E so it's outdated, and it doesn't suit our world. That is also why it has been modified many times and, in contrary to popular belief, it is not required by most of the modern medical schools, although some of the schools have adopted modern versions that suit many in the profession in the 21st century. This means that doctors doesn't have to take the Hippocratic Oath, so your argument is invalid. My opponent came with an argument which was that people that are terminally ill should try to enjoy the last portion of their lives instead of deliberately ending it, but the average percentage of terminally ill patients who die in pain is 55%, it over 50%!. This means that even if a patient wants to enjoy the last portion of their life they will still be in in a lot of agony, which means that they won't enjoy the last portion of their life, because they are in so much pain. The total percentage of the public in the US who support euthanasia for the terminally ill/on life support is 86%, so you can see have many who thinks euthanasia should be legal and that's why I think it should be legal.
420NoScopeBlazin

Con

My opponent says that the Hippocratic oath is out dated... In some of its aspects, yes it is. It requires the doctor to pray to the "healing gods." But some aspects, the more important ones say that is is a doctors "duty to do everything in his power to SAVE the patient, not end his/her life because there's a 50% chance that he/she will die? Here, let me ask you a question. Would you rather just let the doctor kill a relative or someone you might know just because they are in pain? Or would you rather live the rest of your life wondering if there was a chance... Even a slim one, that in the next few days of the patients life, a treatment or cure be developed for the patients illness? Back to the 50 % statement. If you went through your life always betting for the good odds, you are still gonna end up losing. If you cook meat 50% of the way through here is still a chance you might get a parisite... If you pay 50% of your bills, you're going to have a weird life. Anyway, if you always look at the numbers, of course you are going to lean towards the bigger one, but there is a reason that number isn't 100 %, because there is a possibility that the other 50% could qualify for your relative/friend and that their life will be spared!
Debate Round No. 2
simonkjaer

Pro

My opponent is correct in saying that a doctor should do everything in his power to save a patient if there is a 50% chance that he/she will live, and not kill him/her but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a doctor only should help a patient if he/she is terminally ill or a patient that is in unbearable agony, because they have a disease. The patient should also have a wish to die, before the doctor would help the patient. My answer to your question is that I would prefer to be with them until they died of their sickness but if they were in a terrible agony and they couldn't stand the pain anymore, then I would prefer them having euthanasia and I would of cause be sad to see them die, but I know that I want my relatives to do the same if it was me. I know that there always will be a chance for you to be cured but I don't think that it's worth it if you go through all of that pain, just to die at the end if they don't find a cure before you die but that's just what I think.

Conclusion:

In this debate my opponent has come with several arguments against euthanasia. The first one was that a doctor took a Hippocratic Oath but this argument is invalid, because doctors don't have to take that oath anymore, and those who do take an oath that has been modified so it fits in to this century. In round 2 my opponent comes with some arguments. He says that if a patient has 50% chance of surviving, then you shouldn't just let the patient die and in some ways I agree with him in that argument. Later he starts saying something about if you cook meat 50% then you still have a chance of getting a parasite, and then something about bills and that you will have a weird life if you just pay 50% of them. I think that argument is weird, and not really an argument.

For the listed reasons, I urge a vote for Pro!
420NoScopeBlazin

Con

My opponent is right about the part where I said that the 50% of meat and bills part is weird, at that point I guess I was just typing random things that would be weird if you only did half of them. I'm sorry for the confusion, I myslef was confused after re reading the article after my opponent pointed this out to me. I thank him for that. This is my final argument against him and before I say anything I would like you to vote Con against Euthanasia.

Reasons:
a. The Hippocratic oath says that a doctor must take care of the patient until death an try to prevent said death, not kill the patient

b. it gives them "a relatively painless death" I have researched further and there is no scientific proof of it being painless

c. Even if the patient is in agony there is a 50% chance in recovery, with the percentage of recovery higher if there is an antidote.

d. The death from Euthanasia causes even greater emotional strain on the family because they will wonder if there was anything that could have been done to save their relatives life.

f. It is a form of suicide, which is also illegal.

Thank for reading my case, I hope you vote against Euthanasia!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by heypranaynay 1 year ago
heypranaynay
I cannot judge, but here is my resolution. Pro won the debate because, mainly because con failed to address Pro's counter points. "50%" was tossed around but had no legitimate backing. There are many people who have 90% chance of dying and those who have 40%. Numbers are based solely on an individual patient. Point C falls. Point A about Hippocratic oath was not well refuted by the neg. They basically agreed it was outdated, and then also said it has good things. Pick one, don't be two sided. I would have loved to see evidence on if Euthanasia was painful or not. If there was evidence, it would have been a voting factor. Point D was brought at the end of the debate so, it can't be factored in the debate. Skipped Point E for some reason. Point F on legal issues was also brought up at the end. Pro: Please organize your arguments it helps the reader and you when you write. Con: Don't bring up new points at the end, and stick to one side on the Oath. Both: Use Evidence!
No votes have been placed for this debate.