The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Euthanasia should never be considered.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 811 times Debate No: 63985
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Euthanasia is not a wise or helpful option and should never be an option.


Euthanasia is helpful for people who don't want to endure pain anymore. Mental from knowing they are going to die anyway and physical from the pain itself. That combination is the worst you can have unless your religious then spiritual can be added as well. IT should be considered because Americans should have the right to choose weather they want to endure pain and live a bit longer before death or not.

I have no stated my point of view like my opponent did so now it is time for my opponent to paste his case for the next round. I will respond with my own case after.
Debate Round No. 1


So first of all everyone will endure pain in life and everyone will eventually die. Thus according to what you wrote, everyone can be euthanized because we all qualify. This pain you mention can vary between a paper cut and a terminal disease.
Second, there are several objectives good to suffering that I would like to present:
1: Enlightenment~ one realizes how precious life is
2: Detachment~detaches us from the things in this life that are not necessary
3: Reparation~to fix our lives (suffering that one might endure as a penance or such)
4:Character building~how one responds to suffering can help build character
5: Humility
7:Drawing out love in others who help the person suffering
Thus, one should not end his life in order to avoid or end suffering.
Third, we did not begin our life and so we have no right to take it away. There is a difference between rights and freedoms. A right is something that we are entitled to, while a freedom is something that we are capable of doing. We are able to kill ourselves, but that does not mean that we should.


What my opponent said in his last speech:
"So first of all everyone will endure pain in life and everyone will eventually die. Thus according to what you wrote, everyone can be euthanized because we all qualify. This pain you mention can vary between a paper cut and a terminal disease."

My response:

He clearly doesn't even know what Euthanasia is and he wants to have a debate on it? It is ovboius I meant pain from the diseas that resulted in someone being offered Euthanasia, the only time someone is offered this is when there is no cure the doctor can provide, figured you knew this stuff be prepared for a debate over a topic you present.

I will first define Euthanasia with many definitions so my opponent can understand it's meaning, I thought he knew its meaning but since he thinks pains like paper cuts and any disease is what Euthanasia is used for he doesn't.

1st definition from medical dictionary :The act of putting a person or animal to death painlessly or allowing them to die by withholding medical services, usually because of a painful and incurable disease. Mercy killing is another term for euthanasia.
Clarification: Millions of people are diagnosed with severe illnesses every day such as cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease. These diseases have the potential to cause extreme pain. Also, patients with a terminal illness already know that they will die. They are in pain, and are forced into life-prolonging treatments. The delayed life is a future filled with pain and indignity. Life is a beautiful thing full of hope and love, but a terminal illness may change it into agony and worries. Euthanasia is the only way to relieve the pains. For that reason, such patients should be assisted by doctors in order to expedite their death. According to the Journal of Advanced Nursing:

2nd definition from bing: Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.
3rd definition: 2 definitions from the best source ever Merriam Webster:
A. the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering
B. the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals

So as you can see in all these definitions the person was going to have a slow painful death anyway and now I will go to my case.

Intro: The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words "eu" and "thanatos" which combined means "well-death" or "dying well" (Euthanasia, 2008). The fact that life is important has a relative meaning. When a patient with a terminal illness is hover between life and death, the value of a decent death might be more important than uncomfortable life. People falling under the definition of possible euthanasia patients are the patients whose brains are not functioning, or bodies are dying. They may think that they would rather die than lead such lives with their bodies in severe pain every day (Amarasekara, 2002). That is to say, the patients who are kept alive at a vegetative level, or informed of a terminal cancer, are forced to believe in a miracle of a possibility. Therefore, euthanasia should be legalized in the case of a terminal illness.

Observation: I am not saying suicide should be legal or anything like that, I am backing up Euthanasia to let someone suicide only when they are going to die anyway and endure suffering.

cont. 1. right to not suffer
"We should be able enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights -- the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to. Although it is true that people have basic human dignity and life is sacred, life is not the only way of guaranteeing the dignity of humans. Some people say a decent death is more important than life at the moment of death. In other words, the reason that the right to live is important is not because a man has a body, but because a man lives like a human being. When the pain has increased, the patient's life is no of little living, and the patient really hopes to end it to avoid suffer a pain. These patients were unloaded by the nurses and caregivers and were in horrible condition, often being very emaciated and dirty (Benedict & Caplan, 2007). By this time, euthanasia would be in the best recipe of a patient who is faced with death. This right should not be reserved. If it is legalized, the patient's interest would be protected. Also, if the opportunity of death is not allowed, we might lose the direction that our lives will go in democratic societies today. Therefore, a patient with a terminal illness should have the opportunity and the right to choose death.

cont 2: quality of life
"A doctor"s job is not only to prevent death but also to improve their patient"s quality of life. Not practicing euthanasia at the request of the dying person is violating a person"s rights, creating an economic burden, interfering with a doctor"s job, and increasing suffering cited from
cont 3: freedom of choice
"Neither the doctors nor the government has the power to decide if you should live or not. Since it is not their life and they are not in your situation, they cannot make that kind of decision for you. They give us the liberty to decide our job, our family, our religion, and even our sex preference. Why should they not give us the right to decide if we want to live a painful life or die a painless death?

I will now attack my opponents later points after his first argument:
he brings up enlightenment which he stated means "one who realizes how precious life is," and I agree with that 100% but what my opponent must understand is that your life isn't precious in the scenario in which Euthanasia is used for. The reason it is defined as mercy killer in definitions is because it saves a person from insane physical, mental, and sometimes spiritual pain. I will go over each pain in the following few points.

A. Physical pain: the diseases that isn't curable is usually very painful not only because it is incurable but also because the person is dying, and dyeing very slowly. Some diseases that are known to cause extreme pain are cancer, aids and Alzheimer's disease as provide by journal of advanced nursing.

B. Mental pain: Some of the patients for Euthanasia have serious mental problems as many neuroscience studies point out. Also some of this mental pain results from the person knowing he is going to die which makes his quality of life very low and his last few months or so to live very miserable whether a spouse is his company or not.
C. Spiritual: Lets say you believe in a religion like mine known as apostolic, you could go into mental break downs because we believe you need the gift of the holy ghost to go to heaven if you are about to die without that and you believe in this as well you could go through insane mental pains because you realize you are going to hell.

Another point he brings up is this "Character building-how one responds to suffering can build good character.
My response: The only response needed for this moral based argument is that if your going to die soon your character doesn't matter. Also 2 months of insane pain isn't a good scenario or time frame to build good character if you did bad things the last 10 or 20 years of your life you can't make it up in a short time frame.

My main point: Honestly I don't believe in Euthanasia. Bet you are shocked right? But since I am con I must argue it and I am arguing it for this main reason. I am apostolic so I believe and have seen miracles, my dad had severe cancer, he prayed and was healed. However not everyone is religious and shares these values which is why Euthanasia is a choice. If you have my beliefs you don't have to take it. The main reason I should be voted today because this is a choice and I have shown why some need it.
Debate Round No. 2



I am so grateful that you have spent the time to respond to my argument.
I understand what euthanasia is, I was just showing that your argument was very broad, but I am glad that you have narrowed it down for me.

So you said, that euthanasia is "the act of putting a person or animal to death painlessly or allowing them to die by withholding medical services" puts animals and humans on the same level. It is saying that humans should be treated in the same way that domestic animals are. One can not merely put a human "to sleep" as one would do a dog. This is scary to think about. If we were on the same level as animals concerning the issue of euthanasia, than we could in any medical situation.

Next I would like to address what you wrote about the root words of the word "euthanasia."
Yes it means "well death" but that is because euthanasia used to be a synonym for the Catholic sacrament "anointing of the sick." This is where a priest would allow a person to make a last confession and save their soul. Thus it would be a "good death" because the person who was dying would be considered to have a peaceful afterlife. Now, in modern times it is used as a word that means, killing someone in chronic pain, as you have stated. Thus, the literal meaning has no correlation to its modern definition.

I have looked up the European Declaration of Human Rights as well and it says that,
"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." (
I did find a piece of it about prohibiting torture but I did not find anything specifically on euthanasia. Here it says, " No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (
Yet a terminal illness is neither a degrading treatment or punishment. It is a natural disease.
Thus I do not believe that the European Declaration of Human Rights is a good source to choose for defending Euthanasia.

In cont. 2 you state, that if a doctor rejects a person euthanasia they are "violating a person"s rights, creating an economic burden, interfering with a doctor"s job, and increasing suffering"
First of all a person"s life should never be classified as an "economic burden." Money has finite value, human beings are priceless. Second, death is not a right. The beloved merriam webster dictionary states that a right is " something that one may properly claim as due." We did not create our lives so we cannot destroy or end it. We are capable to but that does not mean that we should. We cannot properly end our lives because they are not ours to take. Third, a doctors job is to preserve one"s life, not end it. When you give doctors the permission to end your life, things could get out of hand. It gives him the license to kill his patient. That"s right, to Kill his patient. Yes the patient may want it but he is still killing him. Even if he gives the patient the means to do it himself, he is indirectly killing the patient. That sounds like something in a horror film.

In cont 3 there are a ton of misunderstandings. First of all, the government does not give us rights. I they did then they could easily take them away. If they gave us the right to food and shelter, then if they took them away would we not have them anymore? That seems like a ridiculous question but that is exactly what you are saying. Rights come from a higher authority (God) as man would believe. Thus they cannot as you said, "give us the right to decide if we want to live a painful life or die a painless death?" Because they do not have that authority.

Now I will refute your later attacks. You said that " your life isn't precious in the scenario in which Euthanasia is used for" Well that is actually quite disturbing. Life IS ALWAYS PRECIOUS!! Just because someone is sick does not mean that they are of less value.

You claim, "Also 2 months of insane pain isn't a good scenario or time frame to build good character if you did bad things the last 10 or 20 years of your life you can't make it up in a short time frame" This is your opinion. I have heard of deathbed conversions, when people realize some evil they may have done and repent. It is possible. God is Mercy and is willing to forgive at any time. He will never turn His back on someone. Yes, someone might experience physical, mental, or spiritual pain (in your scenario) but that is no reason to give up. True heroes will fight to the end. Yes it is scary but if one accepts his suffering he will realize all of the fruits that I mentioned before. Do not be afraid. If one embraces suffering he will realize the beauty in it.
Yes I believe in miracles as well as you. Why would you promote Euthanasia of you know they can happen. I understand why someone might feel that Euthanasia can help them, but I know that in reality it is being used as an escape route. It is being used as an easy way out. It is a very unnatural way that is dangerous to accept. We cannot begin to accept the idea that killing ourselves is good.

I hope this answered your questions and I will pray that you understand what I was trying to say.

Thanks for debating with me.


My opponents first argument is showing how if we allow euthanasia for humans would be treating them like dogs. I can see how he got this argument a good one to and it makes sense since this treatment is pretty much 100% legal for dogs and only legal in some places for humans. My main response is basically that dogs need shelter and humans need shelter, dogs need food and humans need food, dogs need love and humans need love, so dogs need an escape from a incurable cure that has insane pain and so do humans since they both feel pain. Now I am not saying humans are super similar to dogs. For one thing humans have a soul and dogs don't and god (if you believe in god) made animals for us to eat and to provide for us. We are above animals no doubt but we have certain similarities and certain needs to animals that can't be ignored. Again shelter, food, water some examples of these similar needs as well as the fact that we both feel pain.

I hope my opponent excuses me for this but I am very religious but not catholic I am Apostolic so I am not familiar with what you are talking about on the argument about Catholics making original meaning for euthanasia. I request opponent to explain it to me a bit more the concept of euthanasia in the catholic religion so maybe I could provide a response but for now I drop that argument until I have a grasp of it. The one thing I understand however is his main argument seems to be there is no correlation between literal meaning and modern meaning but argument I have right now is as things change definitions change. The definitions I provided from bing, Merriam Webster, and medical dictionary were all made in the 21st centaury so the meaning of Euthanasia changed especially probably due to the fact that it wasn't legal for humans at all back, but now some countries have it legalized.
my opponent claimed European Declaration of Human Rights has nothing with Euthanasia but I will show how it does piece by piece. The first part that says "everyone's right to life shall be protected by law" means they should have a choice in life so they can choose to live or die. Now the last piece that applies is prohibiting torture which means that a person shouldn't be forced to endure the physical and mental torture of a disease, they should have a choice to die. IK this wasn't meant to apply to euthanasia directly but it fits in the description but some parts of it go against suffering so making someone live a horrible slow painful life until death is violating this.

My opponents next argument is about economics shouldn't come first, our life isn't for us to take away (I guess he is saying god and I believe in god too) and last horror and doctors committing murder
My response: What I mean by economic burden is that health care has cost and if someone is going to die anyway there is no need to lose money on them. I am not saying they are a waste I am just saying that it is costly to keep people alive especially on expensive treatments for deadly diseases like Cancer. I am not putting money first I am just saying that if they are going to die anyway offering them euthanasia would save money and allow them to have a choice. I believe in god as well I believe that we shouldn't take our lives and I believe in miracles but what you must consider is that their are non believers so since they don't believe they should be offered this choice. If someone doesn't believe in god and miracles it's not going to happen for them. Also they will have to endure so much pain and suffering and pretty much have no quality of life, or in other words no reason to live anyway. My opponent just said a doctors job is to preserve life. YES I agree on that. I even stated that a doctors job is to improve quality of life so basically if their is nothing he can do and by letting the person live her quality of life is actually getting lower due to mental pain and physical pain he should offer to end life. What I am saying is if a doctor can't save or improve quality of life he has no choice but to end it or let the person live it out. Like I said if they are religious like us then they can live it out. Euthanasia again is a choice it's a choice not a requirement. Also in horror films as you mentioned they get killed without wanting to be killed. When the doctor does it the patient ask to be killed and its done for a good purpose, to ensure they don't have to go through a few months of extreme mental, physical, and depending on circumstances/religious readiness spiritual pain.

My opponent states that rights come from god.

I said I am apostolic I believe in god 100% but what you must understand is since I am con in this debate I have to go against my beliefs. It's kind of like in debate in high school, you might not like a side but you have to learn how to defend both. My opponent says the government doesn't give us rights god does. God gives us divine rights I agree and I believe those come first, but the government also gives rights. God's rights are supreme because his come first and he is powerful but even in the bible god said that the devil would rule hell, he would rule heaven, and he would let people do as they wish on earth. He still is the most powerful but he is allowing people to influence the world so basically we have to go off the government giving us rights. Me and you since we believe in god wouldn't follow it but some others would cause it's still an option. There is porn available to watch but since I am Christian I don't watch it. This is the same thing Euthanasia is a choice if you believe in god taking it would be a sin since god can do anything and heal you from that disease. As I mentioned earlier my dad had cancer we prayed and it was healed, the doctors didn't understand and couldn't figure out how. I believe in miracles I believe in god which is why I wouldn't take euthanasia. But what I am saying is for those that don't and don't believe in miracles it would be insane torture for them to have to go through months of pain because they don't believe they will be saved so they have insane mental pain. A Christian who has all the qualifications needed will not endure mental pain cause he knows even if he dies he is going to heaven he will be relaxed knowing he is free from this sinful world and he also believes if god wills it he can survive, but a sinner or a nonbeliever doesn't' believe in this so he will panic and possibly go insane since he doesn't believe in miracles and is unsure about his after life.
My opponents last argument is basically how god is willing to forgive. I agree 100% it can happen and I have seen it happen but it is very rare and usually only happens with people who were involved with the religion before death. My argument was focused on those that never have been to church or never believed in god. Also if your in insane mental/physical pain on a death bed chances are you will not be able to function right enough to get any requirements needed to get to heaven.

Conclusion: I am glad to debate someone who believes in god as I do but again I am con so I have to run these arguments. Also again this is an option and anyone deserves a option. Even god gave options. A major example is with Adam and eve he could have just put the tree of life but no he gave Adam a choice between a bad tree and a good tree to show that god believes in choices. God let heaven be run by him, hell by the devil, and world by us because he wants us to have freedom of choice. Now he will be upset if we choose sin but he lets us choose. He would feel upset if someone chose Euthanasia but god offers freedom of choice. He doesn't regulate what people choose and if a supreme god with supreme authority doesn't force us to serve him then we as humans have no right to force people to repent to god and not take euthanasia. God has only gave us authority to try and persuade them to serve him
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by kitten1504 2 years ago
I would just like to give my opinion on a couple of points I read.

Firstly, 'we did not create out lives so we do not have the right to take them'. I assume you are talking about your god here. A) your mother and father created your life, not your god. B) religion has no place in a logical debate, just saying. You cannot start a debate and then one of your backing points be something about god, it just doesn't work. Sure, you can base your opinions on your religion, I am not religious myself but most of my beliefs on how one should live are based on most religious teachings. For example, be kind to others, help those in need et cetera. My point being, you cannot use a god as a reason for or against something. I'm not sure if that is my hatred of religion coming through or just me being too logical, but there is no place for religion in a debate, just like there is no place for religion in the law.
Now this is the same point I just made, but yet again you say, 'rights come from a higher authority (god)'.
I do not believe in a god. Human rights come from exactly that, humans. Our evolution from Neanderthals into intelligent beings gave us the necessary intellect to ascertain that, in fact, humans deserve basic rights. True, it happened way later than I can believe, but in this day and age people should have the right to end their lives when they would like to. I am not advertising suicide, or saying that it is the answer to all your problems as that would be madness, but, in cases of people who have lost their dignity, lost their quality of life due to a dilapidating illness then they should, if they would like to do so, have the choice to not go through that.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
It was interesting debating another fellow believer in Christ I wish you well no matter the results was a great debate you were really competitive.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
same this a interesting topic and I like your response
Posted by LuciaR 2 years ago
Thanks for the debate :)
God Bless
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
Glad you have sense thx for pointing that out.
Posted by Veteran 2 years ago
It really comes down to a quality over quantity issue. Is it really living every moment is consumed with pain and suffering and treatment? Forcing some one to endure a life of pain or diminishing mental abilities or to slowly endure the indignity of lose of function and inability to care for themselves is inhumane. We treat our animals better. It is time humans get a choice in how they die.
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Pro, euthanasia is used on people who have next to NO chance of remission. This is not comparable to everyday suffering.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
it is helpful for people who don't want to endure pain anymore. Mental from knowing they are going to die anyway and physical from the pain itself. That combination is the worst you can have unless your religious then spiritual can be added as well.
No votes have been placed for this debate.