Euthanasia should be legalized with requirements
Debate Rounds (5)
It is not being suggested that a teenager going through a severe bout of depression because of bullying or their first heart break should have this option. This is for people who's life no longer holds any intrinsic value.
I thank my opponent for proposing this interesting debate. I wish him good luck and hope for thoughtful responses. I will present my opening arguments here.
One of the most famous philosophers of ethics was Immanuel Kant. He came up with a system of figuring out if an action was moral or not called the Categorical imperative. The Categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. In using the this method Kant condemned all forms of suicide by saying the purpose pain is to protect one’s life  , such as taking your hand out of a fire because it burns, and by using pain as a reason to end one’s life was contradictory to the purpose of pain and was therefore immoral.
We usually strive to be moral beings, so we should avoid from having immoral acts.
Due to the laws subjectivity there are never clear answers. In the Oregon Death with Dignity act Terminal Illness is defined as “means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months"  Things such as pain, suffering, or terminal illnesses are all subjective and you could get different opinions between different doctors, and why is the limit six months for physician assisted suicide and not four or eight months? There is no sound medical reason for why six months are chosen. Also, how do you measure pain? Does it include mental or physical? In Belgium people have been euthanized for depression, anorexia, and going blind. 
Since there is subjectivity, it makes the law hard to enforce and have safeguards for.
3. Right to Die
The courts have ruled on physician assisted suicide and there was no constitutional right to die. In the case Washington v. Glucksberg the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Washington’s ban on physician assisted suicide was not a violation of the fourteenth amendment and there was no constitutional right to die.  They ruled the same in the similar case of Vacco v. Quill. As far as the courts are concerned there is currently no legal right to euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.
4. Slippery Slope
The legalization of voluntary euthanasia/physician assisted suicide would lead down a slippery slope to other non-voluntary euthanasia. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2001 but have they gone down the slippery slope? In 2004 the Netherlands passed something called the Groningen Protocol. This allows the non-voluntary euthanasia of infants.  So, as far as the slippery slope is concerned the Netherlands is well on their way down and there nothing stopping other countries from following.
We should not legalize PAS because it will lead to other more damaging things.
Voluntary euthanasia is not as voluntary as you might think. The most famous euthanasia program was the one that took the lives of eleven million people in the 1940s, the infamous holocaust. The victims of the Nazis were Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, Homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and people with disabilities. In particular the Nazis attacked people with disabilities with a propaganda campaign portraying them as burdens to society and their families. "The principal reason people in a 1991 Boston Globe survey said they would consider some option to end their lives if they had “an incurable illness with a great deal of physical pain” was not the pain, not the “restricted lifestyle,” and not the fear of being “dependent of machines,” but rather that they “don’t want to be a burden” to their families. Family members who support the suicide of a terminally ill patient often unwittingly reinforce the notion that the ill family member’s life has lost all meaning and value and is nothing but a “burden.”"  "Many elderly people already feel a burden to family, carers and a society which is cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request euthanasia 'freely and voluntarily'. These patients need to hear that they are valued and loved as they are. They need to know that we are committed first and foremost to their well-being, even if this does involve expenditure of time and money. The way we treat the weakest and most vulnerable people speaks volumes about the kind of society we are"  So, voluntary euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide is almost as voluntary as in Nazi Germany.
6. Pain Relief
People say euthanasia provides a way to relieve extreme pain. This is like saying cyanide relieves depression. It is true that they don"t feel pain anymore abut they don"t feel good because they are dead. Now try it with the other example. It is true that they don"t feel depressed anymore but they don"t feel good because they are dead. There is also ways to relieve pain besides death. "It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available."  In countries with euthanasia Palliative care is poorly developed. 
As stated in my opponents opening statement this moral law is the creation of one man so it is based off of one person's belief system and that should not dictate the life of others as they might believe very differently from him.
This is his statement on suicide:
A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels sick of life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask himself whether taking his own life would not be contrary to his duty to himself. Now he asks whether the maxim of his action could become a universal law of nature. But his maxim is this: from self-love I make as my principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction. There only remains the question as to whether this principle of self-love can become a universal law of nature. One sees at once that a contradiction in a system of nature whose law would destroy life by means of the very same feeling that acts so as to stimulate the furtherance of life, and hence there could be no existence as a system of nature. Therefore, such a maxim cannot possibly hold as a universal law of nature and is, consequently, wholly opposed to the supreme principle of all duty.
" Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals
From his statement we can take two phrases:
"from self-love I make as my principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction."
This applies perfectly to the moral standards of euthanasia because it is not meant for a young teen suffering from heartbreak but primarily for the terminally ill whose shortened life will be filled with pain and suffering. His example of "taking your hand out of a fire because it burns, and by using pain as a reason to end one's life was contradictory to the purpose of pain" is irrelevant because in his example there is something that the person can do to make the pain stop. That person is not dying of an illness or suffering from paralysis from the neck down.
"feeling that acts so as to stimulate the furtherance of life" Pain is indeed meant to preserve ones life but the world is not so black and white that Kant's moral belief system should be absolute for everyone.
In the case of the terminally ill pain is useless because there is nothing one can do to save their life.
. Therefore Kant's moral belief system becomes irrelevant.
We euthanize millions of animals every year under the premise that it is the "humane" thing to do because they would have no quality of life. If animals are allowed that humanity then why not us?
It is true that it is subjective but that does not mean that the lives of those who suffer should be determined from those who are not. It is extremely rare for such a terminal illness to receive a different opinion for other doctors once reasonable methods of treatment have been taken and there are many determining factors such a 90 year having to go through brutal chemotherapy after the cancer has been cut out of the body. The chances of this person making any kind of significant recovery at their age is highly unlikely. A person has to determine for themselves what quality of life they have after such a thing occurs.
Pain is purely subjective which makes it even more crucial that the decision be left in the hands of the patient. A patient has the right to refuse treatment which in many cases is a form of legal suicide. The doctor knows the patient will die without the treatment but they do not have the right to forcefully save their life by making them take the treatment.
The hardest part of this law would be to include terminally ill children. The standard for them would have to resemble similar requirements as these:
- Every viable medical option has been attempted
- Both parents consent
- The child has been deemed competent enough to understand the implication of death
Simply because it is hard to enforce does not mean that it should not be done.
3. Right to Die
There have many laws created that do not appear on the constitution so to say that there is no constitutional right determines nothing. Terri Schiavo's case is the perfect example, her husband made the choice to remove her from the feeding tubes which resulted in her death. The federal court upheld the husbands decision. The law allowed this woman to starve to death which is a cruel way to die. Removing the feeding tubes was a form of assisted suicide because they knew for certain that she would die. Before her condition progressed she made it very clear to her husband that she did not want to be kept alive by a machine and he respected her wish. If the law is going to allow a person to starve to death and refuse treatment that would save their life it should also allow them to choose euthanasia, a much more humane way to pass.
4. Slippery Slope
"The legalization of voluntary euthanasia/physician assisted suicide would lead down a slippery slope to other non-voluntary euthanasia" This is purely a matter of my opponents opinion as there is no evidence to support the claim. There is no way to prove that what happened in another country would happen in America. Is there a risk it could get slippery? Yes but that can be said of any law that has ever been enacted. In America abortion is a very heated debate and on the border line of being declared illegal so to suggest that infants would start being euthanized without probable cause is highly unlikely but we should always be vigilant to ensure that no law is abused.
The program set up by the Nazi's was murder plain and simple, it was by no means voluntary. They started targeting the ill and disabled two years before the attempted genocide of the Jew's which is known as the holocaust. They twisted it around to disguise their true intent which was genocide.
The term "euthanasia" (literally, "good death") usually refers to the inducement of a painless death for a chronically or terminally ill individual who would otherwise suffer. In the Nazi context, however, "euthanasia" represented a euphemistic term for a clandestine murder program which targeted for systematic killing mentally and physically disabled patients living in institutional settings in Germany and German-annexed territories.
The so-called "Euthanasia" program was National Socialist Germany's first program of mass murder, predating the genocide of European Jewry, which we call the Holocaust, by approximately two years"
To suggest that a euthanasia program in America would resemble anything similar to that of the Nazi's is completely absurd. There is no Nazi party here trying to find legal methods of exterminating people.
Below is what the Gallup poll found:
"Broad Support for Euthanasia Using "Painless Means" Wording Has Been Steady
The alternative euthanasia wording -- describing it as ending a patient's life by some painless means -- dates from 1947, and shows the majority opposed to it at that time. Attitudes flipped by the early '70s, with 53% in favor, although significant opposition remained. By 1990, nearly two-thirds were in favor, and support has remained at about that level, except for 1996 and 2005, when it rose to 75%."
Law's are created in the best interest of the many and to suggest that most families would let a family member chose euthanasia without trying to persuade them is ludacris. Furthermore the patient would have to qualify for euthanasia they would not be able to have it performed without probable cause and being a burden would not be one of the qualifying factors.
I will argue 6. in the next round. Out of characters
Due to time constraints I will only address 2. Subjectivity this round.
I never said that it should be determined by those who are not suffering, I state that euthanasia should not be legal so no one is determining anything since there is no option.
"It is extremely rare for such a terminal illness to receive a different opinion for other doctors once reasonable methods of treatment have been taken"
What was your source for this?
"The chances of this person making any kind of significant recovery at their age is highly unlikely."
The chances of this person recovering after euthanasia is zero. The is at least some hope without euthanasia.
" A person has to determine for themselves what quality of life they have after such a thing occurs."
Like I stated people suffering from these diseases are not in the proper mental state to decide such titanic decisions.
"Pain is purely subjective which makes it even more crucial that the decision be left in the hands of the patient."
I addressed this in pain relief.
"patient has the right to refuse treatment which in many cases is a form of legal suicide."
Refusing medical treatment isn't suicide, they are not ending there life any sooner than would naturally happen.
"The doctor knows the patient will die without the treatment but they do not have the right to forcefully save their life by making them take the treatment."
No, and this is not what I am arguing for.
"The child has been deemed competent enough to understand the implication of death"
So, you want to bypass age of consent?
"Simply because it is hard to enforce does not mean that it should not be done."
Euthanasia is easier, it is finding cures and treating people that is hard. Fighting to live is hard, while ending a life is easy. Trying to relieve pain, comfort patients, and treating them with dignity is hard, but giving them a lethal injection is easy. Keeping euthanasia illegal is a lot harder than legalizing it.
"You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation."
This is called bandwagon logical fallacy.  Just because something is popular doesn't make it right. If this was the case inter-racial marriage would not have been legal until 1997 when a majority approved of it. 
How is there no option? They do not have to choose euthanasia and they would not be able to if they did not meet the requirements.
I speak from personal experience as I have worked in the medical field so I've seen the people that wish for this to be legalized. The families are usually the only reason these people cling to life so for them to wish for death despite having family support speaks for the quality of life.
"A person has to determine for themselves what quality of life they have after such a thing occurs."
Who's to say that they are not in their right minds? Simply being in pain does not inhibit your sense of right and wrong.
"patient has the right to refuse treatment which in many cases is a form of legal suicide."
By your own method of thinking pain is there to protect us, it keeps us alive and by committing euthanasia they would be ignoring pains intentions which is to protect us so if someone is refusing treatment while writhing in agony they are ignoring the pain that is meant to save them. In both scenarios people are choosing to ignore the pain which is meant to save their lives. Therefore your statement of pain is irrelevant.
"The child has been deemed competent enough to understand the implication of death"
In a court of law a child can be deemed competent enough to choose which parent they wish to live with. In extreme cases a child can be deemed competent enough to seek out emancipation as well. Therefore there are almost always exceptions to age limits. Another example would be an 18 year old soldier being sent off to a foreign land and is put into situations where they might have to take the life of another person. They are deemed competent enough to fight a war but not to purchase alcohol.
What's easy is forcing ones own views of life onto others when they are not the ones suffering. There are many people that wish to fight the illness till the end but there are also those that just don't have any fight left in them. Their will to fight has broken. Sometimes people try every option available to them and yet they still have no quality of life. It should be the right of the people to determine if they want to live or not.
Bandwagon logical fallacy is nothing more than a theory of opinion. Why should we be allowed to force our views of life on other people? What gives us the right to deny them what they so desperately want? People have a nasty habit of sitting themselves up on a pedestal and telling people what they're doing is wrong but that is simply their opinion. To some people its wrong for a person that has some quality of life that they don't have the right to end their life when they have no quality. The logical fallacy is believing that we have the right to take away the choices of others because our beliefs differ from theirs.
"How is there no option?" If euthanasia isn't legal then it isn't an option, so there is no option. "I speak from personal experience..." This is a different logical fallacy called anecdotal . "Who's to say that they are not in their right minds? Simply being in pain does not inhibit your sense of right and wrong." Pain will cause people to do things they would not normally do which is why torture is used to get information. Further, a super majority of older people suffering from terminal illnesses who attempt suicide suffer from depression.  "if someone is refusing treatment while writhing in agony they are ignoring the pain that is meant to save them." They would refuse treatment such as being hooked up to a machine, but that does not mean they are forgoing all medical treatment.
As far as a child receiving euthanasia, there is a difference between deciding which parent to live with and ending your existence. Those two are not even close to being able to compare them.
It is easy to "force" one's views? I don't like how you worded that, but it still conveys the idea. If force is needed then it obviously requires effort to enact such a policy. What is easy is saying do what ever you want.
"The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity."  To respond to why should we be allowed to force our views of life on others, because things have consequences, and if the negative outweigh the positives then no matter how many people think it should happen it should not. "What gives us the right to deny them what they so desperately want?" The same thing that gives us the right to stop people from murdering their neighbors even if they desperately want to. I already explained there is no right to die, so a policy that forbids euthanasia doesn't take away any rights. "The logical fallacy is believing that we have the right to take away the choices of others because our beliefs differ from theirs." This isn't a logical fallacy. Further, we do this all the time like All Drugs & Alcohol, Euthanasia/Suicide, Prostitution, Polygamy, Gay Marriage, Cannibalism, Bestiality, Incest, Public Nudity, Abortion (According to some people), Dueling/Fights to the Death, All weapons of any kind be owned should all be legal then.
1. This is a logical fallacy, you presume that pain will cause people to do things they would not normally do. Torture is a completely different set of circumstances that do not coincide with the concept of euthanasia.
A more accurate statement would have been "pain might make people do things they would not normally do" There is no way to prove your statement, it is simply an opinion. Though it has some truth to it because someone living in perpetual pain with no cure seeking out euthanasia would not be seeking it out if they did not live in perpetual pain.
1. never ending or changing
That is the definition of perpetual and it's how terminally ill people live out the remainder of their lives.
By your own statement "a super majority of older people suffering from terminal illness who attempt suicide suffer from depression." 1. They are suffering 2. They are terminally ill These two things can directly cause depression, it is not the depression that is the cause of their suffering, or their illness, nor their pain. When a person has no quality of life they are going to be depressed.
2. Being hooked up to a machine is what keeps many people alive such as Terri Schiavo.
As far as a child being able to make the choice to end their life, that is another debate altogether though that would be a very tricky topic.
I apologize if my statement about "forcing" one's view has offended you, that was not my intention though when people try to take away a persons choice to do with their body as they see fit based on their own moral perspective that is exactly what's happening. It's not easy to think of someone suffering so much that they would rather end their life than continue living but that is reality. It's easy to tell others how they have to live when we are not that ones suffering.
"popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity" Popularity of an idea is the view of the people whom these laws would affect so it absolutely has validity. For example: The presidential candidate to receive the most votes will become president because that is the choice of the people. Marijuana is another prime example, legalization has become a very popular idea over the last decade and we now have 4 states that have legalized it and even Washington D.C. is putting it on the upcoming ballot. Clearly popularity has validity.
3. That is not a statement that belongs in a free democratic society. We elect an individual to run the country based on the beliefs of the majority and there is no proof to say that the negatives would outweigh the positives that is purely an opinion. Euthanasia is an individual decision that does not affect the masses.
"What gives us the right to deny them what they so desperately want?" Again we are not talking about something malicious such as murder.
Policies change all the time such as those pertaining to marijuana.
True we do impede on the choices of others on certain topics but euthanasia is a unique problem that cannot be compared to the wide variety of subjects you mentioned. If you like I could go into depth on each of these subjects to show why they have no relevance.
Your logical fallacy was an appeal to authority since there are laws prohibiting your examples.
This is similar to an earlier round where you stated that euthanasia was a slippery slope. That claim in itself was a logical fallacy called "slippery slope" you have shifted attention to extremes such as the Nazi's suggesting that people here might be forced into euthanasia.
My opponent has also stated "Refusing medical treatment isn't suicide, they are not ending there life any sooner than would naturally "
This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to nature.
"Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable."
Con contends that euthanasia is ending a life sooner than it would naturally so therefore it is not right or justifiable.
Freedom and dictatorships are not opposites. Freedom and totalitarianism are, and democracy and dictatorship are. You can have a totalitarian democracy or a freedom protecting dictatorship.
You say I used the False cause logical fallacy but it don't see that I said any false causation. I said pain makes you do things you would not normally do, and torture is was just an example of how pain will change what people do. I did not commit that logical fallacy.
I could prove it just by stating that many nations still use torture to "change" peoples minds' and if pain didn't do this then nobody would use torture.
1. never ending or changing
First, the human body is always changing and nothing about it is never ending or changing including pain.
The statement about people suffering from depression is to show that most are suffering from that mental disorder, and not in the right mind to make such big decisions. Yes, people are suffering, but suffering can be relived as previously stated. I never stated that depression caused their suffering or illness, I just people with the suffering usually have depression and are not in their right judgement.
2. Being hooked up to a machine is what keeps many people alive such as Terri Schiavo.
In Terri Schiavo case was not euthanasia, she should have never been hooked up to a machine in the first place if was against her will.
"As far as a child being able to make the choice to end their life, that is another debate altogether though that would be a very tricky topic."
Children don't have the ability to make such decisions which is why we don't let them do many other things like smoking, driving, buying a house.
Then inter-racial marriage would have been banned for much longer, and so would segregation, slavery, laws that teach creationism. Just because something is popular doesn't make it right. Hopefully, you like the death penalty because that is popular, just like being pro-life. If tomorrow a poll revealed that 80% of people agreed that citizens over 60 should be euthanized to reduce medical cost would that be something we should make law? After all it is the people's will.
Marijuana is legal in four states? Really please name them since I only know of two. 
3. The belief of the majority has been overlooked because it wasn't right like ending slavery. We are a republic not a democracy there are certain things that no matter how many people favor can not be done like ending the freedom of press. Further, democracies have done terrible things at the majority whim like executing Socrates.  Also, there is plenty of negatives which is why it is legal for states to forbid such actions.
"'What gives us the right to deny them what they so desperately want?' Again we are not talking about something malicious such as murder"
Why not murder? If they desperately want it why not? You gave no reason on why not.
"Policies change all the time such as those pertaining to marijuana."
So, what does this prove?
"True we do impede on the choices of others on certain topics but euthanasia is a unique problem that cannot be compared to the wide variety of subjects you mentioned. If you like I could go into depth on each of these subjects to show why they have no relevance."
Yes, I would like that because there is no reason why they are not in the same category.
"Your logical fallacy was an appeal to authority since there are laws prohibiting your examples."
Really, is this a joke? Appeal to authority: "You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true."  I never said the law forbids, so it must continue to be forbidden. That is an appeal to authority. You falsely claimed another logical fallacy.
As for the slippery slope, this is also false. First, this is only a fallacy if "no proof is presented" , and I drew direct correlations such as targeting elderly, the disabled, the sick.
Now to the appeal to nature. This is yet another false claim. I said "Refusing medical treatment isn't suicide, they are not ending there life any sooner than would naturally", which is just telling why refusing medical treatment isn't suicide. There is no claim that this is good or bad or preferred. I was just stating a fact, so to claim I said "Con contends that euthanasia is ending a life sooner than it would naturally so therefore it is not right or justifiable." If, this were true I would have never advocated for palliative care since it would extend a persons life beyond natural means.
3. Right to Die
Terri Schiavo' s case is a interesting one. "There are no written declarations by Terri Schiavo as to her intention with regard to the issue"  The issue of life support. Her case was between her husband and her parents who believed she had opposite stance on this issue. Either way it was euthanasia without her consent which is non-voluntary euthanasia which is going down the slippery slope.
My opponent seems to be in a fairy tale where reality simply does not exist. He seems to believe that people do not live in perpetual pain for the rest of their short lives. True we cannot determine exactly how much longer they will live but that is one of the greatest benefits of medicine and science today, we can observe and record people with conditions and predict rather accurately the outcome of those with the same illness.
So you contend that depression is widespread but what if a person in perpetual pain had never had signs of depression until the pain began? Yes sometimes pain can be relieved but you simply cannot deny that sometimes every option available still does not work. Sometimes there is no relief medicine can offer. That is a fact of life
2. I never stated that it was euthanasia I stated that she was essentially allowed to commit suicide because she did not wish to be kept alive by machines. She had made the choice to die rather than live by machines, much like a person suffering perpetually opts for euthanasia.
As I said in the previous round children and euthanasia would be an entirely different debate.
Again euthanasia is a unique situation, it only involves the person opting for it. If a physician did not wish to participate in euthanasia that would be there right to refuse such as some refuse to do abortions. There would be those that would participate in it.
"If tomorrow a poll revealed that 80% of people agreed that citizens over 60 should be euthanized to reduce medical cost" This was an incorrect use of the word euthanized as it is a choice. By your phrasing the people over 60 would have no say in the matter.
3. More and more states are legalizing things that were once taboo such as gay marriage or marijuana. The views of the individual are beginning to gain more weight as we've seen in recent years. The fact remains that euthanasia is a personal choice. It's not forcing anything on the nation as a whole.
It was overlooked because the power of law lies with the few and they did not uphold their duties and respect the voice of the people. It is not their job to protect people from themselves (please cite a source if you disagree) and no where in law does it state that if they disagree with the masses that they have the right to act against our decision and yet they do anyhow.
Murder is taking away a persons choice, euthanasia is the choice of an individual. Vast difference
It shows that the taboo is loosing its impact. People are beginning to break down the walls of myths that surround subjects that were once taboo and they're finding that it was not as horrible as they were made to believe. Gay marriage, marijuana, things like that. People have lived in ignorance on these subjects but the more they actually educate themselves on the issue the more their views have changed. Like the gallop poll on euthanasia for example or marijuana. Two decades ago these were still taboo subjects, especially gay marriage and now the military even allows it to some degree.
"In 2010, two federal courts ruled the ban on openly gay service personnel unconstitutional and on July 6, 2011, a federal appeals court suspended the DADT policy. In December 2010, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and under its provisions restrictions on service by gay, lesbian, and bisexual personnel ended as of September 20, 2011."
To put it bluntly people are beginning to loosen up and see things for what they really are.
After this debate feel free to start another debate on those topics if you wish.
"Your logical fallacy was an appeal to authority"
Clearly you've had trouble understanding the context in which you've spoken and how it applies to your logical fallacy to authority.
"Slippery slope" Must I define euthanasia and genocide for you?
noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation
the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The practice is illegal in most countries
My opponent seems to have trouble understanding the difference of the two so I shall attempt to break it down.
The Nazis operated under the guise of a euthanasia program that had already existed but the methods used to do so were illegal but at this point they had complete control of the government therefore rendering anyone virtually powerless to stop them.
My opponent refuses to admit his proven fallacies despite being caught red handed.
The Nazis operated under a dictatorship under a man named Adolf Hitler who attempted the Jewish Genocide.
America does not operate under a dictatorship, this is a country where the president is elected by the people and we have elected officials that represent us.
Are you suggesting that America could be converted to a dictatorship which would make your scenario plausible?
Nazi Germany is the only country to attempt using "euthanasia" as a means to commit mass murder.
"any sooner than would naturally" naturally being the key word in the phrase. This correlates to your statement in round one. Refusing medical treatment is ignoring the "pain" meant to keep us alive and therefore immoral by your standards as the person is choosing to allow their life to end. If someone dies by jumping off a skyscraper is it suicide? Yes, if someone refuses medical treatment that would save their life is it a form of suicide? Yes, they are choosing death plain and simple. The person chose to not save their life which is immoral by your stance.
From round 1
One of the most famous philosophers of ethics was Immanuel Kant. He came up with a system of figuring out if an action was moral or not called the Categorical imperative. The Categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. In using the this method Kant condemned all forms of suicide by saying the purpose pain is to protect one"s life  , such as taking your hand out of a fire because it burns, and by using pain as a reason to end one"s life was contradictory to the purpose of pain and was therefore immoral.
We usually strive to be moral beings, so we should avoid from having immoral acts."
3. Right to Die
Unfortunately she did not leave a declaration as to her intentions on the issue so the husbands word was all they had to go by.
"non-voluntary euthanasia" again you have misused the word. Euthanasia is physician assisted suicide, Terri was removed from all forms of life support allowing her to starve to death. According to your previous rounds she died naturally as no one euthanized her. She starved to death.
Yes, it is a personal belief, but I also have a personal belief that triangles have three sides. Just because it is a personal belief does not make untrue.
When you said the "world is not so black and white that Kant's moral belief system should be absolute for everyone." You didn't give a reason for this that the world isn't black & white. Further, you state that "In the case of the terminally ill pain is useless because there is nothing one can do to save their life. Therefore Kant's moral belief system becomes irrelevant.", but Kant's reasoning didn't depend on whether or not there was a possibility of survival. Also, there is nothing that is impossible just highly improbable, so there is not a single person that is without hope.
"If animals are allowed that humanity then why not us?"
We separate ourselves from animals in many ways. We have a Universal Declaration of Human rights but not animal rights. Humans are separate from animals because we are capable of higher thinking, and realizing that we exist. Further, you assume I am in favor of euthanizing animals.
It doesn't matter what the source of the pain is, it still makes you act differently, and you don't dispute that. Further, you say that since illness is natural is valid, but pain from torture is invalid since it is not natural. That is the appeal to nature logical fallacy. 
3. Right to Die
They also had her parents' words which were the other party in the case.
Non-voluntary euthanasia is the proper term. 
Also, you have never shown there was a right, and the supreme court unanimously agreed there was no right. 
4. Slippery Slope
It isn't an opinion, it is a trend shown by the countries that have legal euthanasia, and in fact just recently Belgium, one of 4 countries that have euthanasia, now allows euthanasia of children.  "...to suggest that infants would start being euthanized without probable cause is highly unlikely..." Probable cause? You are saying if there is a probable cause then we can euthanize infants, and you still say that the slippery slope is my opinion? Also, the Netherlands thinks they have probable cause too.
Yes, the Nazi plan wasn't voluntary, I wasn't saying it was. I agree that it targeted the ill and disabled, and what demographic does this "voluntary" euthanasia target? It is the same group of people.
According to the New England Journal of Medicine, Euthanasia suffers from a high amount of complications from failure to induce coma, a longer time than expected for death, etc.  Also, a BBC report 1 in 5 cases of euthanasia are not "easy". 
"There is no Nazi party here trying to find legal methods of exterminating people." This wasn't the point I was making. In fact you avoided everything in this point. Everything in this argument was to show that it isn't voluntary as you think, that there is coercion, and guilt that factor into such "choices".
6. Pain Relief
You NEVER addressed this point.
7. Terri Schiavo
It wasn't euthanasia in the way you used it, but it was Non-Voluntary euthanasia. " She had made the choice to die..." That is not true. As stated in the last round "There are no written declarations by Terri Schiavo as to her intention with regard to the issue". There was no choice made by her. If there was a choice, there would not have been a court case.
8. Gallup Poll
Euthanasia isn't a unique situation, I showed many other things that would go into the same category of only involving the persons opting for it. "By your phrasing the people over 60 would have no say in the matter." I am not sure how you came to that conclusion, I am sure they were part of the people opposed. The point was that public opinion has no validity on what should and should not be law.
If you are in favor of euthanasia, gay marriage, and marijuana for the reason that it only affects those involved, then you should be in favor of the other things I named such as public nudity, beastiality, or polygamy for the same reason.
" It's not forcing anything on the nation as a whole." Yes, it does that was the subject of points 4 & 5.
The majority don't decide laws here. See video.
The government protects people from themselves all the time with seat belt and helmet laws.
"euthanasia is the choice of an individual." Like I said you didn't argue point 5 about if it is or not. I made the case, and gave evidence for that it isn't, you made a statement that it is.
9. Logical Fallacies
I didn't use appeal to authority because I never said that something like "Well [unqualified person] doesn't think that euthanasia should be illegal too."
About the Slippery Slope, I never said that euthanasia is genocide. I said that euthanasia lead down the same path as mass murder. I showed how the two are similar and how slowly countries are moving in that direction. It would have been a logical fallacy if I didn't provide proof.
It seems you dropped you case that this is the appeal to nature. Refusing a medical treatment is not ignoring pain since they can still get different medical treatment that is aimed at relieving pain. If someone jumps off a skyscraper, that is suicide because it is ending their life sooner than it naturally would have, but refusing medical treatment is not suicide because it is not ending their life sooner than it naturally would have.
P.S. I would do a debate on Gay Marriage or Marijuana since I oppose both.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.