What I mean by requirements is the person seeking out euthanasia should not granted the request just because they are having the worst day of the life or because their spouse divorced or any reason of the sort. In other words the person would have to be suffering from a terminal disease or just have not intrinsic value. Religion is bound to be brought into the debate as a foundation for why it should not be legalized but I welcome it.
Euthanasia should be legalized, and there should be no restrictions. People should be able to die whenever they want, regardless of their physical and mental health. Life, being wearing of these worldly bars, should always be able to dismiss itself.
The debate was originally intended to be about whether or not it should legal at all but no I do not forfeit. I do not believe just anyone should be able to go to a physician and end their life. Many teens choose suicide because they think their problems are just too great and that their life is never going to improve but those of us that make it past our teen years look back and realize how trivial our problems really were. Of course if someone truly feels they have nothing left to live for they don't really need a physicians help to end it do they. Not so much an elder stuck in a nursing home bed 24/7 whom euthanasia is generally pertaining to or for any terminally sick person. We can't stop the vast majority of people but that doesn't mean we should just say o well and help them end it.
You're saying that young people should have restricted access to suicide because young people are more likely to make short-sighted decisions? What about young people who are capable of making mature decisions? It's ageist to assume that all young people are immature. And what about children with incurable diseases? Why should they have to suffer simply because they were unfortunate to have been born under a particular revolution of the earth?
Furthermore, even if a person kills himself prematurely, why should that matter to anyone else? The deceased will be unable to regret his decision; he'll never say, "Oops, I should have waited." Besides, what if things would have become worse if he had lived longer?
[Sorry if that was unorganized. It's New Years Eve, and I'm a little drunk.]
How ironic as am I! I do not believe there should be an age requirement but again their should be certain criteria that needs to be met such as a terminal illness even among children. I believe that even a young child has the right to end their suffering no matter how hard it may be for the parents and it pains me to think of a situation in which this might happen but I think we can all [pretty much agree that the parent is more likely to cling to false hope when it comes to their child and demand that they fight when it is clear that the child does not want to fight anymore. Everyone should have the right to decide what they want to do with their life regardless of their age. In the case of a parent they would not be the one suffering so I do not believe it should be their right to tell their child that they are not aloud to end their suffering when there is no hope for recovery. I can understand the parents desperation as I am a parent myself and I desperately hope that my child never has to deal with a circumstance like this and I sympathize with any parent that has had to deal with this as it is the most difficult that we can possibly go through. I only hope that I would have the strength to respect my childs wish and end their suffering. For A child to make such a decision takes courage beyond measure and I personally don't think I would have the strength to support my childs decision to end their life even if I knew it was for the best because I love her so much and if it came to a situation like the one we've discussed I believe I would be too weak to let her go.
That statement was made in regards to someone that is dying slowly or simply has no value hence the sentences before that statement. Again if someone truly feels that they have the right to end their life at anytime for any reason then they do not need the permission of the law. The law would only decree that you would not receive the assistance of anyone else. I understand what your saying and I even partially agree with you but not to the extent that people should be able to help each other die. It has to be through a physician and the patient has to have a terminal illness or some other terrible affliction such as someone that has been paralyzed from the neck down. There is a difference. Me personally, if I wanted to end my life I would not care in the least what the law says about suicide.
In conclusion, because everyone has a right to their own body, everyone has the right to suicide, regardless of the approval of anyone else. It shouldn't be contingent upon illness, for doctors do not have the authority to decide whether someone should live his life.
Reasons for voting decision: The reason I vote Con is that I didn't find anything in Pro's argument that made me want to vote his way. Why is it important that people not be able to kill themselves with legalized assistance for spurious reasons? You admit that they will simply kill themselves in the absence of such assistance, so why is legalized assistance uniquely worse? I can see a problem with it - ever heard of do no harm? It doesn't just apply to the patient, and inflicting death can definitely be harm. There has to be a sharp division there as to what is and is not harm, and it can't be based just on patient choice. But I don't hear those arguments. I don't find Con's questions or points very convincing either, nor does he offer reasons why individuals should have a right to their own bodies. But it's Pro's burden to support his position first and foremost, as he created the question. So the vote goes to Con. Also, so does grammar, due to various errors from Pro.
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.