The Instigator
JayConar
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
YoungLawyer
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional

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 2 votes the winner is...
JayConar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 980 times Debate No: 60225
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

JayConar

Pro

Assisted suicide is to be defined as 'the act of accomplishing suicide with the aid of another person.'

Currently, such an act would be viewed by the eyes of the law as murder on the part of the assistant. However, I see no reason as to why, when it has been checked by a medical professional and deemed as acceptable under the circumstances by the same medical professional, it should not be legalized. This, I feel, would negate at least most of the controversies of the debate, as well as negate the arguments that are commonly used to combat the view that euthanasia should be internationally legalised.

It was not uncommon, in the realms of History, to hear of doctors bringing about the end of their patients lives to help them avoid unnecessary pain and suffering.

It is already legal to allow a person to die of natural causes, for example in the signing of a DNR, when we are able to help them yet recognise their right to die. So why is that different in the case of people who are not imminently suffering from heart attacks or other fast-acting, terminal conditions.

Thank you for accepting my offer of a debate, good luck!
YoungLawyer

Con

I accept. I look forward to this debate.

Before I start out, I will like to say my opponent is all over the place. It is difficulty to grasp my opponent stand and points, considering his writing. If I'm not mistaking...are you accepting that "Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional" or are you against it, due to you stating... "However, I see no reason as to why, when it has been checked by a medical professional and deemed as acceptable under the circumstances by the same medical professional, it should not be legalized." So are you saying that it should be legalize or not?

I will like to argue and say that simply because a trained medical professional approved something doesn't mean we should allow it. Take for instance the many fake advertisements about weight loss pills. Many doctors have been used in those advertisement as a way to convince overweight people into buying them. In their eyes, its a medical professional that is approving it, and when they do buy it, it does nothing. What you're saying here is that we should not question authority, simple because its "approval by a medical professional." So if a pill was to kill you and you didn't know about it but a medical professional approvals it, would you question him or not, or you just going to take it because he approves it?

Before I dealt deep into this debate I will like my opponent to clarify these points and where he stands, considering that he's on the pro side of "Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional."

"So why is that different in the case of people who are not imminently suffering from heart attacks or other fast-acting, terminal conditions." From reading this my opponent does not support his "pro" side of this topic.

"It was not uncommon, in the realms of History, to hear of doctors bringing about the end of their patients lives to help them avoid unnecessary pain and suffering."

"This, I feel, would negate at least most of the controversies of the debate, as well as negate the arguments that are commonly used to combat the view that euthanasia should be internationally legalised." Are you combating you "pro" stand that it should be legalize if its approved by a medical professional?
Debate Round No. 1
JayConar

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate, YoungLawyer!

I am rather bothered though, I didn't realise that this would turn into a lecture on English, a language which you evidently have no grasp of.

I must admit that re-reading my sentence, the one that you most helpfully quoted for me, I can find no fault with it. But for the sake of my opponent, who I can only assume is either insane or simple, let me re-iterate. The title of the debate is 'Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional'; if you have not yet noticed, I am representing the 'pro' side, as you should have concluded due to my name being in the big, green 'PRO' box. Therefore, my sentence, 'However, I see no reason as to why, when it has been checked by a medical professional and deemed as acceptable under the circumstances by the same medical professional, it should not be legalized', means that I see no reason as to why euthanasia should not be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional. I hope this clears things up for you, opponent. In the off-chance that you are still, somehow, unable to understand my position in this debate, I am arguing that euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained professional.

I must say that it does seem to me that you have accepted this debate purely for a provision of a complete analysis of my prose, is this the case? If so, then bless your heart, I will provide one for you.

'So why is that different in the case of people who are not imminently suffering from heart attacks or other fast-acting, terminal conditions.' In the context of the paragraph it belonged to, this sentence questioned the morality of allowing people who have signed DNR's (Do Not Resuscitates) to die, yet not allowing those who are suffering from a painful or debilitating condition, such as motor neurone disease, to die, just because they are unable to do it themselves.

'It was not uncommon, in the realms of History, to hear of doctors bringing about the end of their patients lives to help them avoid unnecessary pain and suffering.' This sentence states that, in the past, patients trusted their family doctor's to end their lives when they were suffering from an incurable disease upon request. I see no reason as to why it should not be very much the same nowadays.

'This, I feel, would negate at least most of the controversies of the debate, as well as negate the arguments that are commonly used to combat the view that euthanasia should be internationally legalised.' This sentence suggests that the use of a medical professional to determine whether euthanasia may takes place negates the commonly arguments that are used to debate against euthanasia being legalised.

Now I shall approach your view that buying a pill from a website which has quoted a doctor whom you don't know and who may or may not know that he or she has been quoted is much the same as allowing a doctor whom knows you, has your files and knows of your wishes, to decide as objectively as possible whether or not euthanasia may take place in your case. You see, opponent, I'm not saying that we should never question authority, however I am saying that if there is a person that you should be able to trust with decisions about your life, it is a doctor. I would certainly disagree with your stance that doctor's should never be trusted, would you also decline chemotherapy if you got cancer because it was approved by medical professionals? Or would you choose not to allow a surgeon to remove the bullet and stitch the wound if you were shot? Afterall, the procedure would have first been approved by a medical professional. Your lack of faith in the medical profession is somewhat disturbing, do you, in fact, trust anybody?

Medical professionals follow strict ethical guidelines nowadays, one slip up and they can very easily lose their job. I can see no reason as to why a medical professional would risk losing their job in order to end the life of somebody that they know in passing. But if you insist, maybe it would be better to have a council of medical professionals who go through the case files and talk with the patient before making a decision on euthanasia.

I do hope that in the next round you don't just pick apart my prose.

Your turn.
YoungLawyer

Con

This is not a lecture on English. I was simply trying to get an understanding. I will not make this an argument on our English. Now to the debating...

To simply make this debate quick I will like to ask my opponent: Why does it have to be approve by a medical profession in order for it to be legalize? Have we now placed our voice and our life in one person hands? Why can't it be approve by the government and one chooses weather or not they want to do it? Simply because I'm making this reference does not mean I support euthanasia. I'm against it. And I will discuss why further in my argument. But...

I never said I lack faith in the medical profession, I very well respect them and trust them in the event of life or death. I do trust someone. I trust myself that's for sure. Again, this is not an attack to attack, so I apologize for how I started out, I was only trying to get an understanding. I once broke my leg and I was depended upon a doctor to save me. I question the team that led the surgery about the procedures and what's going to happen and how its going to turn out. They showed me a posted of how things work. When I was 13 I got bitten by a spider and I went to the hospital. The doctor prescribe a pill to me. I question her about what's going to happen to me if I do take the pill. She said, well its going to make you drowsy. And she was exactly right. While I was at home, I decided to take the pill, and all of a sudden I was very sleepy. I took a long nap, and over the course of the weeks, I improve. So no I did not say I do not have faith in medical professions or that "doctors should never be trusted", I simply question their actions, in hope of understanding their work. Which of course, they liked it when I did question them about some things. It was an understanding between they and I.

To argue your point on that euthanasia should be legalize Internationally once approve by a medical profession, isn't agreeable. Why should it have to be approved by a medical profession in the first place? Why can't it simply be based on that person decisions? The role of a doctor isn't in putting or helping put an end to ones life, but to prevent their life from deteriorating and to make their lives better. By allowing doctor to approve euthanasia, and than people starts killing themselves, you completely change the face of what it means to be a medical profession.

Here in America, we're trying to prevent suicide, as innocent people are taking away their own lives. People whom have committed suicide see it as a means to end the suffering such as bullying and they not being 'perfect.' Euthanasia is no different from suicide. As the synonym itself states: assisted suicide. Why add on to a trend we're already trying to end? Now I know that euthanasia is a means to put an end to your life painless, due to suffering as such as painful diseases. But what will you say the standards that have to be met before one could consider euthanasia? And what gives one the right to state weather or not one does not meet such standard? Once medical profession approves euthanasia, many people, especially young adults will use it as a means to put an end to their lives.

Life is a once in a lifetime opportunity, While many of us have the chance to live it, others did not. We cannot let it completely go to waste. As time changes, so do our problems. If everyone simply start ending their life, how than can we work towards trying to see how we can make things better for them?

Your turn. I look forward to my opponent reply.
Debate Round No. 2
JayConar

Pro

My opponent wished to ask me why it should be a medical professional and not a member of the government that evaluates each case of planned euthanasia and decides whether or not to permit it , he then proceeded to sum up the exact reasons as to why it should be done in such a way!

As explained by my opponent, the job of a doctor is to 'prevent their [patients] life from deteriorating and to make their lives better.' Therefore, a doctor will ensure that every option which could save their patients life or increase their standard of living is taken before finally allowing the patient to end their life with the help of another person. I.E. to undergo euthanasia.

You attempt to claim that suicide and assisted suicide are the same thing: 'Euthanasia is no different from suicide.' I am quite sure I can prove that you are wrong. Suicide is defined as the act of killing oneself, whilst euthanasia is defined as the act of the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Therefore there should be no need to worry about young people considering euthanasia in order to stop their suffering at the hands of bullies, because that would not be viewed by a medical professional as a valid medical reason as it is, in fact, not a medical reason at all. Indeed, the only people who would meet the criteria and be allowed to legally be assisted with suicide are those suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, as suggested by the definition of euthanasia.

Your penultimate paragraph does not seem to be on the subject of the debate at all. If an individual is suffering from an incurable and painful illness, how can their life be made better? Perhaps in the short term the pain could be relieved slightly, but would you rather die in agony when you have no choice or die with your family and friends in relative comfort before the disease makes you unable to communicate with your loved ones or the pain becomes so unbearable that you become angry with those who mean the most to you, how would you wish to spend your last moments?

Your turn.
YoungLawyer

Con

I can simply put an end to this debate by saying its not or should be a medical professional who decides weather or not euthanasia should be legal or not, because speaking in government terms, illegal or legal is decided by the government, as it is a law which is suppose to be decided by the government.

I never said "why not a member of the government that evaluates each case," when you say member, you're speaking on an individual decision which of course, I do not support. Plus why would I say, a member of the government should approve it first, when they are in Washington and the doctors are far away. It's like you saying that I propose that once each case is at the hospital, they should call a member of the government to approve it first, that will create long bureaucratic process, which I do not favor. I brought that point up because you said "approve by a medical professional to be legalize." An individual does not make the decision of weather or not something is legal or illegal, it is the government. I said why can't it be approve by the government, because after all they have to approves law and decide what is legal or illegal. Since it's a law, the government is the one that is suppose to reform it; so if the government does choose to make it legal, than an individual should chooses or not weather they want to exercise that right. That's what I was trying to put it, not that each case should be heard by a government member before approving it.

So are you saying that once something doesn't work, or don't still seem to work, means we should give up? Why do you believe it's the doctor that should have a say in "finally allowing the patient to end their life with the help of another person"? That does not seem to wrap around my head. So it is a doctor who have a say in weather it is now time to kill myself after evaluating my condition? What can't he tells me of my condition after evaluating it, and than ask me weather I want euthanasia or not? Instead of he/she deciding.

You're trying to correct me on what you yourself have first pointed out. In the beginnning you define it as..."Assisted suicide is to be defined as 'the act of accomplishing suicide with the aid of another person.' and than went on to say "However, I see no reason as to why, when it has been checked by a medical professional and deemed as acceptable under the circumstances by the same medical professional, it should not be legalized. This, I feel, would negate at least most of the controversies of the debate, as well as negate the arguments that are commonly used to combat the view that euthanasia should be internationally legalised." By reading this my understanding is that euthanasia is defined by what you previously said, considering you used the word "however" as to imply that euthanasia is "the act of accomplishing suicide with the aid of anther person" and than going on to say "if it is checked by a medical professional and deemed "acceptable" under the circumstances by the same medical professional, it should not be legalized."

I did not attempt to claim that suicide and assisted suicide are the same thing, I'm actually right in saying because synonym is defined as "words having the same meaning." So yes assisted suicide, is suicide. It's just that euthanasia, people find a means to justify their suicide, with the help of another individual.

Actually, there will be a need for young people to consider euthanasia if they deem it necessary, as it is not a medical professional who tells them weather or not they qualify. Bullying: "Bullying is linked to many negative outcomes including impacts on mental health, substance use," Those negative outcomes such as mental health and substance use could lead to painful diseases, so yes I should worry about young people considering euthanasia in order to stop their suffering at the hands of bullying.

My "penultimate paragraph" is on the subject of the debate. Because this has to do with life, and its about trying to make their condition better for them. We could help make their life better through medical research of their painful disease, if they allow it, as they are allowing doctors to do other works on them. There are those with diseases in developing countries and even in developed countries, who forge forward in hope of a better tomorrow, and while their problem will not be over quick, it will somehow get better. I have seen people like that personally, who do not simply give up on their life just because things are hard. How would I wish to spend my last moments? Thanks for asking that question. I rather live it while still being able to see my love ones, I rather live it to be able to see them smile, laugh, and cry, I rather live it so they could be able to tell me they love me or read little note cards to me, I rather live it to be able to see them run out of the house to play, or bring friends over, despite the fact I cannot communicate with them and going through unbearable pains that may cause me to be angry, but they being my family and knowing of my condition will understand. I rather spend my last moments like that until death comes and take me away. What will I be teaching them if I give up on myself...or I just certainly decides because of this, I will take the easy way out, and forget about them. How would you spend your last moments considering that you still got little nephew, and nieces, and brothers, and sisters, and friends? How would you?

This is also about social groups. It could be about a simple disease that could have been treated if the person could afford it, but because they can't that person will go through the pain, until it gets worse, and than their only option is what you're proposing. This explains it betters:

"It must be recognized that assisted suicide and euthanasia will be practiced through the prism of social inequality and prejudice that characterizes the delivery of services in all segments of society, including health care. Those who will be most vulnerable to abuse, error, or indifference are the poor, minorities, and those who are least educated and least empowered. This risk does not reflect a judgment that physicians are more prejudiced or influenced by race and class than the rest of society - only that they are not exempt from the prejudices manifest in other areas of our collective life.
While our society aspires to eradicate discrimination and the most punishing effects of poverty in employment practices, housing, education, and law enforcement, we consistently fall short of our goals. The costs of this failure with assisted suicide and euthanasia would be extreme. Nor is there any reason to believe that the practices, whatever safeguards are erected, will be unaffected by the broader social and medical context in which they will be operating. This assumption is naive and unsupportable."

"When Death Is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context," newyorkhealth.gov
1994

I look forward to my opponent reply.

http://www.stopbullying.gov...
http://thesaurus.com...
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Well done YoungLawyer, now may I have an explanation as to how my spelling and grammar wasn't as good as my opponents, saboosa?
Posted by YoungLawyer 2 years ago
YoungLawyer
I made a mistake when I said internally i suspected u would have knew I made a mistake as all humans do. Part about the government was never mention in your debate though.

But why should it be a medical professional who permits if the govt does make it legal. Why can I myself permits it if the government does make it legal, and than I get someone to assist me? U still haven't answer this question.

He voted based on what he saw, so what he beliefs is what he belive as u can see that he said u had convincing argument. How come u didn't ask him about that?

Thanks for voting.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Thank you for voting Mubaracus, as well as those who will, but are yet to, vote.

YoungLawyer, ironically it was you who misunderstood the point of this debate. As you said, the title of the debate clearly states that euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional (not internally I don't know where you got that from). This means that I was arguing that the government should introduce a law allowing a medical professional to make a decision on whether or not an individual may be legally assisted with suicide on a case-by-case basis. Not that a doctor would force an individual to take the route of assisted suicide.

My argument was not supporting forced cases of assisted suicide, but rather it was supporting the idea that medical professionals should be legally allowed to permit assisted suicide on a case-by-case basis.

Indeed, the only thing that surprised me about the way Mubaracus voted is that he thought your spelling and grammar was better than mine.

But oh well.
Posted by YoungLawyer 2 years ago
YoungLawyer
Thanks for voting but you missed my point mubaracus and you missed the point of this debate.

The debate clearly states that Euthanasia should be legalized internally when aproved by a trained medical professional.

What I try, and did pointed out is that its not an individual, or group of people within a society that dictates what legal and illegal, as illegal and legal are determine by the government, as they are the same one whom enforce such law.

If everyone can dictate weather something should be legal or not, we'll be an anarchy society. Take for example a group of "drug dealers" should they dictate weather drugs legal or not? Say the same medical professional approves steroid, or some medicine, but it haven't yet been checked by the FDA, should they dictate weather or not its legal or illegal? If I was a doctor, and I want to say do marijuana, and after weighing its affect, but I approved it anyway, should it be legal? No its not me that suppose to make such decisions, as I'm not the lawmaker, but the government. That's the point I was trying to make.

I also argue the fact that my opponent said once approved by a medical professional than the person should be assisted in killing themselves. What was failed to be understand is that its not a doctor that should say weather or not, yes you should kill yourself since you have this disease, rather the medical professional should present the findings and leave it up to said individual to decide weather or not they want to go along with this, if euthanasia as been written by law that is legal.

Thanks for voting though.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Good debate, let the best man win. :)
Posted by YoungLawyer 2 years ago
YoungLawyer
Lol I always do that. I forgot to note that its the end of the debate but than add "I look forward to my opponent reply." Didn't notice.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
JayConarYoungLawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's points in favor of euthanasia weren't necessarily extremely strong, but most of Con's responses used personal opinion as a source for rebuttal, while some of pro's points were not even attempted to be refuted by con. I believe pro here fulfilled his burden. Con gets conduct as pro was rather condescending in round 2. Good job to both sides.
Vote Placed by mubaracus 2 years ago
mubaracus
JayConarYoungLawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Hello! An interesting debate. For the future I recommend that each of you address your arguments with headings such as "Rebuttals" and such so your arguments are easier to follow. Throughout this argument you gentlemen seemed to get boggled down by things which appeared insignificant to the argument such as whether euthanasia is suicide. Overall, I don't think Con created a convincing arguments as to why the euthanasia should be illegal. Con addressed points like leaving it to the government and questioned the ethicality of allowing one person to make such a decision but each of these arguments was ineffective in defeating Pro.