The Instigator
Tobyharper333
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Guidestone
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Euthanasia should be legalized

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...
Guidestone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2013 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,137 times Debate No: 42218
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Tobyharper333

Pro

In this debate I will be arguing in favor of legal Euthanasia programs globally, although with specific references to more western countries, and in particular the US, where only 4 states have legalized euthanasia.
In my personal view I believe euthanasia to be a critical discussion as I see the illegality as straight-up restriction of the human right. The right to intentionally end ones life is one in which I feel should 100% be gratified. People who are perhaps in significant physical or mental pain who want this certainty upon them quicker than what perhaps their body can last is, I feel, fully justified. Of course there would have to be bureaucracy so the establishment that one is ready to die is fully committed and no other outside players were involved. I believe that the person wanting to end their life should be subjected to questioning before the act is taken, for example if the person is mentally unstable, irrationally wanting to end their life but is willing to accept help and try to get better then this could avoid lots of irrational endings of life as euthanasia is made legal. Euthanasia should maintain its controlled assessment of patients and should be a last resort, but however, should most definitely be made legal.
I look forward to hearing your arguments.
Guidestone

Con

1. Immoral
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 [1] , 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.


2. Subjectivity
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" [2] 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. [7]

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. [3] 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. [4] 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.

5. Voluntary?
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.”" [5] "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" [6] So, voluntary euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide is almost as voluntary as in Nazi Germany.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

Sources
[1] http://www.siue.edu...
[2] http://euthanasia.procon.org...
[3] http://www.oyez.org...
[4] http://www.nejm.org...
[5] https://www.nrlc.org...
[6] http://www.ethicsforschools.org...
[7] http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com...




Debate Round No. 1
Tobyharper333

Pro

I thank CON for his/her argument, and would like to address each point from R.1,

1.Immoral
The question of morality on any subject is difficult, I feel Kant's argument that 'using pain as a reason to end one's life was contradictory to the purpose of pain and was therefore immoral' to be ironic. The question of morality should always be subjected to the individual through choice. There may be many to whom agree with Kant's interpretation and would rather face the pain than death, whereas others will want the opposite. By pointing out the immorality of using pain to end one's life CON is rejecting the other immorality of taking away a choice from a human being. I would be interested to find a Kant example of mental pain rather than the fire/physical example he uses, for mental pain is just as significant when discussing euthanasia.
I agree we strive to be moral beings, however I would question my morality if I were a doctor with a patient who is terminally ill and only has 1 month to live who is begging for his life to be ended sooner, and I have the capability to ease his passing with the recognition of family members if I didn't step up and act. I believe it is more Moral to allow for choice than it is to accept that pain is to protect one's life and therefore must be endured.

I would like to address your last point now under the 5. VOLUNTARY? section. The 1991 Boston Globe Survey you use in evidence to your argument is indeed hypothetical. In many cases it is the physical pain that encourages people to request euthanasia, however I agree with CON that the 'burden' is particularly the most significant reasoning behind euthanasia requests. It is true that many elderly people feel they are a burden to their surroundings. But I believe in these circumstances the request to die will enhance and reinforce the families love for them and may actually be a good mechanism for preventing the death occurring. If I knew a loved one of mine wanted to die I would want to know why and be there for them as much as I could. It is with euthanasia where I feel if it were to be legalized, family members should be consulted before the process is carried out. Your 'ethics for schools' source is perhaps ironic too as the quote doesn't understand the strength behind such a decision, and the strength behind accepting a decision by a family and/or doctor.
The AktionT4 (Euthanasia Program) you brought up established in 1939 is luckily one I studied at College. The precursor to the Holocaust - framed as a Euthanasia Program - was indeed a disgusting display of human behavior. However, this was no euthanasia program but a form of mass killings against the will of many people and many families. Your reference to it suggests to me you think a doctor is murdering a patient if the patient asks to be put to rest. Meanwhile comparing an act of free-will and free-choice to the program of 'ethnic cleansing' by the Nazis is not one I would accept. As often starvation was used whereas the Oxford dictionary's definition of Euthanasia is 'the act of causing somebody to die gently and without pain, especially when they are suffering from a painful incurable disease' and therefore bears no resemblance to the Nazi campaign. Also doctors were encouraged to decide in favor of death during euthanasia, one which would not be the case in modern western countries.

2. Subjectivity
CON suggests pain,suffering, or terminal illnesses are all subjective and could get different opinions from different doctors, however this statement refuses to acknowledge that Doctors do not feel the patients pain. Pain can be tiny to one person but huge to another, the most basic example is that some people can walk over broken glass smiling! Measuring pain has nothing to do with it; it is the individuals personal pain and it may be different to any one else. The law should be simple, if they are in any type of pain, they say they are in pain, they want to die, their family are okay with it and understand why, it should be allowed.

3. Right to Die
Do you not agree that this is a problem? At least if it was a right there is still the choice to not do it. The right gives the choice and that is what the people should have. Just because the court rules against it doesn't make it right.

4. Slippery Slope
I do not agree that the Groningen Protocol is part of a slippery slope. The infants which may receive this as discussed in your source provided, The infants that may receive this euthanasia protocol are because of 3 categories: 'First, there are infants with no chance of survival'... 'Infants in the second group have a very poor prognosis and are dependent on intensive care. These patients may survive after a period of intensive treatment, but expectations regarding their future condition are very grim.'... 'Finally, there are infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering. Although it is difficult to define in the abstract, this group includes patients who are not dependent on intensive medical treatment but for whom a very poor quality of life, associated with sustained suffering, is predicted' [4] Therefore there are sound reasons for such protocols and this isn't the killing of infants. I assume you are against abortion too therefore my next statement is addressed to anyone reading; Wouldn't you rather a peaceful end before an entire life of pain and suffering. Hopefully with modern medicine this could be addressed and there could be better quality of life for these infants so it would mean they could get the most of life, but I know I wouldn't be able to bear watching a family member of mine suffer day in and day out.
Guidestone

Con

I thank you for a well though out response.

I just want to state, no where in the United States has been euthanasia legal; however, there are 4 states with physician assisted suicide.

1. Immoral
Pain is pain no matter what if it is physical or mental, its purpose is still to protect you by letting you know there is something wrong. Although my opponent offers his version of morality which is referred to as the Harm principle which is "As long as the action involves only consenting adults it is morally permissible.", but I don't believe this is really how he would determine morality. Irving Kristol wrote an argument to this saying "[T]he plain fact is that none of us is a complete civil libertarian. We all believe that there is some point at which the public authorities ought to step in to limit the "self-expression" of an individual or group even where this might be seriously intended as a form of artistic expression, and even where the artistic transaction is between consenting adults. A playwright or theatrical director might, in this crazy world of ours, find someone willing to commit suicide on stage, as called for by the script. We would not allow that-any more than we would permit scenes of real physical torture on the stage, even if the victim were a willing masochist. And I know of no one, no matter how free in spirit, who argues that we ought to permit gladiatorial contests in Yankee stadium, similar to those once performed in the Coliseum of Rome-even if only consenting adults were involved." [1] If this is really does believe this then 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 and is morally permissible; however I felt that I have shown that it does harm people like the disabled and the elderly.

2. Subjectivity
It doesn't deny that it is the patients that feel pain, it implies you can get different opinions from doctors weather an illness is terminal, or you are in unrelievable pain. In fact he actually elaborates further on my point with "Pain can be tiny to one person but huge to another, the most basic example is that some people can walk over broken glass smiling!" Measuring pain does have to do with it because in place where euthanasia is legal "The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain." [2] Why does the family have to be okay with it? Should it not be solely up to the patient? I will address relief of pain later.

3. Right to Die
No, I don't think this is a problem, but you said it was a Human rights; However, the supreme court unanimously disagrees. They also ruled similarly, 9-0, in Vacco v. Quill. [3] Also, it is not mentioned anywhere in the Universal Declaration of Human rights. [4]

4. Slippery Slope
How isn't this a slippery slope? The Groningen Protocol is a form of Non-voluntary Euthanasia. How isn't it killing infants? You can't euthanize something that isn't alive. Yes, I would rather deny the infants right to life based on my subjective judgement that they don't want to live. When people receive their medical degree they have to take something called the Hippocratic oath. In the Hippocratic oath it prohibits directly or indirectly killing human beings. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. [7] By violating this oath how can we know the doctor is acting in the patients interest? A physician's role is to kill illnesses not kill patients.

5. Voluntary?
You agree that elderly people feel they are a burden and would seek euthanasia because of it, but you think since it would be legal it would make families care more? Why do they need the ability for a doctor to kill them before families pay attention? Like you said if you knew a family member wanted to die, they could kill themselves many ways if they want to they don't need euthanasia to maybe have their families care. I also covered people with disabilities would also feel that "burden" too. In fact those are the two groups targeted by euthanasia the "non-providers", the weakest, and most vulnerable it only makes them feel worse.
It was a euthanasia program. It is involuntary euthanasia, but it is still euthanasia. It rarely is an act of free will, so the comparison isn't as far off as you think because the Nazis were getting rid of the people who were "non-providers", the weakest, and most vulnerable.
Euthanasia is "The term normally implies an intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who wishes to die." [5]

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." [6] In countries with euthanasia Palliative care is poorly developed. [8]

Sources
[1] http://www.mandm.org.nz...
[2] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...
[3] http://www.oyez.org...
[4] http://www.un.org...
[5] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[6] http://www.ethicsforschools.org...
[7] http://www.life.org.nz...
[8] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Tobyharper333

Pro

I also thank CON for the response, and will use the quote from Brock in case viewers do not read the comments;

'The central ethical argument for voluntary euthanasia " that respect for persons demands respect for their autonomous choices as long as those choices do not result in harm to others " is directly connected with this issue of competence (cp. Brock 1992)

1. Immoral
Defining the purpose of pain does not aid the argument that it should be endured. My conception of the Harm principle is one articulated by John Stuart Mill who suggests: "The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Irving Kristols argument is very hard to counter, however I believe he grips these hypothetical examples too strongly, and ignores Human nature, especially in the 'playwright' example. Common sense would suggest even if there were people willing to commit suicide directors, other actors, would not want to participate in such an event. I believe in this modern-age people would rather watch American Idol than people fight brutally to the death, we have other forms of entertainment which arguably the ancient civilizations didn't have. We are not encouraged to be brought up as warriors but as human beings, one which differs further into the past you go, so i believe his Yankee stadium argument is irrelevant. To the examples you suggest, I do not think its possible to group them altogether as a collective summary of my moral values. 'persons demands respect for their autonomous choices as long as those choices do not result in harm to others'. Why Gay Marriage is even in there I will never know, Love is bigger than government. I believe Kristol is correct when saying 'We all believe that there is some point at which the public authorities ought to step in to limit the "self-expression" of an individual or group'. I believe its not as black and white as you may think I think it is. I do not condone cannibalism, beastiallity, dueling/fights to the death and allowing all weapons of any kind to be legal because this ignored common sense, and popular judgement. You cannot cloud the idea of free-choice to be subjected to activities which harm/could harm others. Human common sense and nationwide/state-wide consensus would be needed. The moral argument for Voluntary Euthanasia is not as simple that it can be applied to Cannibalism or others you suggest and it is regressive to do so. Jesse Ventura: 'How can you commit a crime against yourself?'

2. Subjectivity
'The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain' is subject to the patient and not to the doctor. Any person with the thought of suicide is already experiencing unbearable pain and therefore the quote: "The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain" is insignificant because requesting euthanasia suggests this anyway. I believe the death of a family member should be consulted with the family before the procedure is taken place because 1. It may reinforce families 'unspoken love' for the family member and therefore may prevent the euthanasia, and 2. If somebody was put to rest without the family being told, this would be subject to anger at doctors/nurses. If the choice of one is to die, and has no way of reconsidering, I believe an honest family would accept his/her decision. I am not saying if the family disagrees with the procedure it cannot be done. The choice ultimately resides with the patient. But with such an extreme request I do think it is important to tell any family members.
Its much easier to make euthanasia illegal but much more right to make it legal.

3. Right to Die
Just because the supreme court disagrees doesn't make it a correct decision. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act suggests Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 'Private Life' has come under immense scrutiny; but the ECHR (European court of Human Rights) suggests explicit suggestions behind 'Private life' are: Bodily integrity " Article 8 will come into play if someone is forced to have medical treatment or if he or she is forcibly restrained.
Personal autonomy " this means the right to make decisions about how you lead your life. People have tried to argue that the right to smoke cannabis is an issue of personal autonomy and should therefore be protected by Article 8 but the courts have not been prepared to accept this. Is forcing someone to bear the pain and live with treatment instead of allowing them to die by their wish a restriction of a Human Right? I know I use the European Human Rights in this argument, but this is because it highlights my point, plus when discussing Euthanasia, I feel European (mostly westernized countries) Human Rights could be incorporated into a Universal discussion. Forcibly restraining a patient from demands for death is just as immoral as some would suggest letting the patient die. However, at least when you let a patient die they have been given a choice and have used it, instead of disallowing a choice to be expressed which I feel is incredibly immoral.

4. Slipper Slope
In this case it is easy for PRO to debate because on the face of it, yes, it is killing infants, it isn't voluntary on their behalf, and the same goes for abortion. However PRO and for many people who are against abortion and I assume pro-life I feel their is a consistent lack of sympathy for both the parents and the infants, in replacement for what is taught to be 'right'. In the Groningen Protocol, despite its horrible outcomes, is inevitably the correct decision for both parties. This will always be a disagreement but I think PRO and I must accept that we will never agree on this.

5. Voluntary?
For one it is not the doctor who is killing them, this is an insensitive use of words. My answer to: Why do they need the ability for a doctor to kill them before families pay attention? Is that families may not know the suffering their family member is enduring, they might not be aware that he/she wants to die. Making it legal wouldn't make families care more, but making it legal would lead to more people requesting the right to die and therefore families would be involved more in order to question the patients right, or to express greater love before the person passes. The request of euthanasia to those who aren't 'burdens' would be responded with lots of reasoning for why the patient is not a burden and will help amend the person's stress and realize he/she is not a burden. In Nazi Germany the justification was never suggested to be that their being killed was in their best interests; rather, it was said that society would be benefited, this cannot be seen today.

Pain Relief.
Who's to say they don't feel good? In their minds death can be the only relief. Who is to say that death is not the same as medicinal treatment. Curing, or fixing a patients problem is the right thing to do. Why, if the patient requests it, is denying the patient his/her plead for death not the same as denying the patient the medicinal treatment he desires? This compassionate caring would be enhanced if the patient was serious about euthanasia.

My argument persists that in the matter of Euthanasia, the choice of death should be one given to the patient. Of course I understand the problems governments face when creating such legislation, but the bottom line is that it is correct to do so, so the government should do all it can to ensure that this choice is given to the patient.

I would like to thank CON for assigning the 6 points we stuck to in this argument, and also thank him for his well constructed responses. This as been a great debate and I look forward to your last argument.

VOTE PRO!
Guidestone

Con

It has been a very interesting and thoughtful debate.

1. Immoral
First, I think we both understand that immoral actions should be legal, and moral actions should be. My opponent gave his way of determining the morality of actions by the Harm Principle. This is a consequentialist theory because you judge the morality of an action based on its consequences; However, this is not a good way to determine right and wrong. This is because you can never know the full consequences of an action. A small action today could lead to major actions later, this is known as the butterfly effect. "The butterfly effect is the sensitive dependency on initial conditions in which a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state." [1] What an action is today a small "harmless" action could lead to world peace, or it could also lead to World War III you can never know. An example would be if a grandparent chooses euthanasia, but then the grandchild suffers extreme emotional pain due to the loss. I would say this caused harm, and by your standard it is immoral and should not be allowed. You can never know what will come of those actions so you can't say it is morally acceptable.
Irving Kristol's argument isn't too strong, and human nature changes. 50 years ago Homosexuality was not accepted at all, but we change, for better or worse. Well those examples should be your moral values since the argument is X should be legal since it does not harm anyone else. You can fill in anyone of those for X and it would work, but you then agree there are limits which you say is because "this ignored common sense, and popular judgement." I don't know why popular opinion has to do with it and that is a logical fallacy. [2] Overall your argument is X should not be legal because it ignores common sense and popular judgement, but common sense is subjective and to prove this we both believe it is common sense to support our positions when it would be impossible to hold both to be true.
In conclusion, you have not proven that euthanasia is morally permissible by the standard you set, and you hold moral views contradictory to your own standard.

2. Subjectivity
My opponent assumes that pain is a prerequisite to euthanasia, but not according to the Oregon Death with Dignity act which states "An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner" [3]. Pain isn't mentioned, and having a terminal illness does not necessarily mean they are suffering from any mental or emotional pain. I also have a problem with family approval. You Always say it is a personal decision, but making it need approval takes that decision away. What if a patient wants euthanasia, but the family does not. Does the patient get euthanized? That I don't know answer based on what you gave me. Further, having family come in affects their decision. If this was a debate about abortion that would be considered a pro-life coercion move to have family intervene in the decision.

3. Right to Die
Even though the supreme court decision doesn't make it the right decision, but when you have a unanimous decision by legal experts from across the political spectrum it does make it a pretty reliable source. I hope you know the Human Rights Act you are referring to is from the United Kingdom. Putting individual countries aside the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enacted by the UN does not consider euthanasia a human right. We are not forcing people to live they have the right to not accept medical help, and they are not going to hook people up to machines if they don't want it. Plus the doctors would obviously do everything they could to ease the pain.

4. Slippery Slope
I will just assume it is suppose to be CON not PRO every time you said it. You do admit though it is a non-voluntary euthanasia. Considering death to be a harm. Then this harms a non-consenting party; therefore, it should be considered immoral by the standard you set. Also, this does mean you admit there is a slippery slope and that we have already started on our way down which was my original point here.

5. Voluntary?
Yes in euthanasia it is the doctor killing them, if it wasn't then it would be Physician Assisted Suicide. [4] If families don't know that one of them is suffering then they are not that close in the first place, or they don't care. If they don't share those feelings because they don't want to burden their family with that pain then they also would not request euthanasia because they would cause even more pain to the family because the patient didn't trust them enough to share their feelings. So, request by non-burdens will be met with people trying to convince them that they are not burdens and should not be euthanized. How is this free, and voluntary when you are coercing them to choose one side? I didn't say in Nazi Germany euthanasia was in the patients. I did say that they were portrayed as burdens on society. Further, you said "I agree with CON that the 'burden' is particularly the most significant reasoning behind euthanasia", so the only difference is one was involuntary and the other is "Voluntary".

6. Pain Relief
In death you don't feel anything, so it is impossible to feel good. It is not the same as medical treatment because no doctor ever prescribes death for a treatment. It is like saying cyanide cures depression. What if the patient request alcohol for treatment instead of other medication? Should we grant their request? Just because a patient request it doesn't mean we should do it. As shown in previous arguments real pain relief, Palliative care, is poorly developed in countries where euthanasia is legal.


Concluding, my opponent has not proven that euthanasia is morally permissible by the standard you set, and you hold moral views contradictory to your own standard, acknowledges that pain is completely subjective, didn't disagree that there is no universal human right to die, acknowledges that we have gone down the slippery slope, agrees people consider themselves burdens and the main reason they "willingly" choose euthanasia, and doesn't contest that countries with euthanasia have poor Palliative care.

My opponent provided a great debate, and may the better arguments win.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

[3] http://euthanasia.procon.org...
[4] http://www.worldrtd.net...


Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Guidestone 2 years ago
Guidestone
You gave me the answer I wanted, so I will now get back to the debate.
Posted by Tobyharper333 2 years ago
Tobyharper333
The central ethical argument for voluntary euthanasia " that respect for persons demands respect for their autonomous choices as long as those choices do not result in harm to others " is directly connected with this issue of competence (cp. Brock 1992). I think your question is unrealistic and unhelpful to the debate. I believe in the case of Euthanasia, morals should be determined by the individual. If we could return to the debate I would be most thankful, unless you insist on me answering any more of your questions. 'Moral' decisions affecting other individuals in any circumstance should be questioned. But when we talk about euthanasia this is a personal choice.
Posted by Guidestone 2 years ago
Guidestone
I what is moral is determined by the individual then what if and individual decided murder was not immoral?
Posted by Tobyharper333 2 years ago
Tobyharper333
I support I'm saying it should be subjective to the individual to what they deem moral or not. In the case of Euthanasia I think it is easier to apply this if it is made legal.
Posted by Guidestone 2 years ago
Guidestone
I hold favor to Kant's categorical imperative and John Locke's natrual rights.

You are saying all morality is subjective?
Posted by Tobyharper333 2 years ago
Tobyharper333
I can ask you the same question. I believe in the case of Euthanasia its when choice is given. The choice enables morals to play a greater role. The choice enables for the people to determine if that something is moral or not. If they think it is then okay. If they dont think it is moral then okay, they don't have to take part. But choice is always better than preventing morals from even being given to the individual to choose for them-self.
Posted by Guidestone 2 years ago
Guidestone
Thanks for clearing that up.

How do you determine if something is moral or not?
Posted by Tobyharper333 2 years ago
Tobyharper333
I must add in the
3. Right to Die
Do you not agree that this is a problem? At least if it was a right there is still the choice to not do it. The right gives the choice and that is what the people should have. Just because the court rules against it doesn't make it right.

The 'it' at the end is referring to the courts decision not euthanasia itself.

Sorry for any confusion.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ModerateLiberalism 2 years ago
ModerateLiberalism
Tobyharper333GuidestoneTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: For me, this debate was a wash in terms of argumentation. Both sides made fair points, and I think Pro held up very well, although he could've won if he directly attacked Con's moral calculus, which was distorted at best. Con had many decent sources while Pro had none. Solid debate otherwise
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Tobyharper333GuidestoneTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument points go to Con, as I felt Pro did not make his case strong enough. Additionally, Pro agreed with multiple points of Pro which cast doubt onto the validity of Pros arguments. Con did well to steer the debate towards the questions which raised concerns with Pros position. Both debaters displayed great conduct by sticking to the points and been courteous. In a similar manner I am awarding split points for spelling and grammar. Source points go to Con, as sources were actually provided. Very good debate to both of you.