Euthanasia should not be illegal
Debate Rounds (3)
2. Main Points
3. Rebuttal and Conclusion
*Provide sources when statistics are being said.
Good luck to who ever accepts this debate!
When you are 95 years old, in the hospital and suffering, you have two options:
i) Suffer and fight for your life
ii) Avoid suffering and die peacefully
Personally, I would see myself fighting for my life, since we only have one chance to walk on this earth. However, my view on life, and my subjective opinions about which option I would take, should never overide somebody elses view on life and morality, when they are making a decision about themselves.
If the government makes euthanasia illegal, they are effectively saying; "What we believe and value, is way more important than what you believe and value."
I'll be waiting for my oppositions arguments with great curiosity, as this is one of my first debates on this topic.
In Greek, Euthanasia means good death. In English, it is better explained as "assisted suicide".
Legalizing Euthanasia could lead to the involuntary killing of people. I think in this debate, we should look beyond the age of people and the two options presented by my opponent.
i) Suffer and fight for your life
ii) Avoid suffering and die peacefully
i) Not everyone who is crippled has to suffer, there could be other remedies not known. My aunt died in 1995 because she was having trouble with severe depression and was out of a job. She could have been helped but I do not think if I was standing with her that I would help her in killing herself. Euthanasia is like a guilt suicide. You are so overwhelmed by the discomfort or depression this person is feeling that, because of that guilt in your head, you kill them because they asked you to. Meanwhile, this guilt is not the answer to the problem. Because suicide is a permanent solution to a sometimes temporary problem. With Euthanasia we have to look beyond age, and also look at the minds of people who want suicide. If we help kill them, it is involuntary murder by the means that our emotions have taken over and you just killed someone who could have been helped. They may feel like they're suffering, but there is almost always a remedy for things. We only live once.
Argument #2- The experiment that failed.
Germany wanted to try it out so they legalized Euthanasia. What were the effects? "bout 60 years ago, Germany made euthanasia legal. At first it was only permitted to be used for the terminally ill, later those with psychological afflictions, and eventually the people who could not make decisions on their own. One thousand patients died without their request. - Why couldn't that happen in the United States?"(http://electionsmeter.com...)
Have you ever heard the term, learn from your mistakes? This would be a good one to learn from. If Euthanasia was legalized, I could be put in the hostpital with a crippled leg and hurt but not want to die. Next thing you know, my crazy enemy unhooks my life support without my request and I die. His excuse,"Dave said he wanted to die a peaceful death." This could be justified in the courts perhaps and if we did legalize it, who would want to take that risk?
First of all, I thank my opponent for accepting the debate.
Let me clarify :
“Euthanasia should not be illegal for people over 18 years old”
My response to my opponent’s introduction:
He obviously does not accept people who would choose to die peacefully. He blames others for not thinking properly, if they choose euthanasia, and he says this, simply because he would not choose euthanasia. Freedom of euthanasia is not directly proportional to mental guilt or handicap. My opponent says that suicide is a permanent solution to a sometimes temporary problem, when we are talking about people who have almost NO CHANCE of recovery. Yes, there is always the miracle possibility, but people shouldn't have to be forced to wait for a miracle.
Guilt is when somebody does something wrong, and they feel bad about it.
Guilt is not when somebody accepts somebody elses freedom of choice.
My opponent says that in Greek, Euthanasia means good death. Then he says that the defenition of today is "assisted suicide". He is obviously against assisted suicide, so he is saying that todays defenition is invalid, but rather the greek defenition is more valid. Since we can see that a good death to him is fighting for every moment of life, we can already prove that he doesn't accept whatever anybody elses opinion of a good death is.
"If we help kill them, it is involuntary murder by the means that our emotions have taken over and you just killed soemone who could have been helped"
Humans are emotional, and it should not be catagorized as a bad emotion for somebody to want somebody elses freedom of choice to be used. My opponent is catagorizing emotions, and using this as a point against euthanasia, without realizing that everybody is different and has different values, which ultimately gives people different emotions.
"We only live once."
Yes we only live once. I agree with that, and that is one of the reasons why I would not euthanize myself. We both agree, that the fact that we only have one life is more important than the need to stop pain. These are our values, and not everybodys values. If somebody is in extreme pain in a hospital, we should not enforce our beliefs on them, because they have their own beliefs that should be used in making decisions for themselves.
My opponent brings out some information. He gets his information from a site with a title "euthanasia should be illegal". The essay on this site is very much against euthanasia, so it is obviously going to have biases against it. http://electionsmeter.com...
"According to a survey conducted in 2002, 63.5 percent of the people who took the survey would want to die on their own without euthanasia. 30.4 percent of the people who took the survey would want euthanasia, 6.1 percent were undecided. Only one third of the people would want euthanasia instead of dying on their own. Decisions may not be the patients' choices."
This is a quote from the exact site that he used. If he put this website in his introduction, he is firmly stating that he supports its points. It says that only one third of the people would want euthanasia instead of dying on their own, and then it says decisions may not be the patients' choices. This site is basically saying that the values and beliefs of 1/3 of the population should be diminished for the values and beliefs of the other 2/3 of the population. This is a good example of how anti-euthanasia supporters don't accept the needs of the minority of the population when it comes to euthanasia. Then finally, it says that decisions shouldn't be the patients choice. Why? Because the majority of people wouldn't want to be euthanized? This isn't a good enough reason.
This essay that he is using was constructed by an eigth grade student at Floyd Dryden High school. The sentence in his introduction regarding 'one thousand patients died without their request' does not have any statistics proving it, I am asking my opponent to use statistics. I am asking my opponent to use better sources than that, in order to have a proper debate.
At the beginning of his introduction he asked me to stop looking at ages, but now he is looking at a case of a person with a crippled leg, and a maniac enemy coming into the hospital and unhooking his life support. A person with a crippled leg would not need life support, and a person with a crippled leg can speak against an enemy trying to kill him. A hospital would not let someone who has no family connections to a person, choose euthanasia for the person. Let's try to be realistic here alright?
My opponent’s introduction is biased as it doesn’t show why the freedom of choice is less important than the illegalization of euthanasia. All it shows is why HE thinks euthanasia is wrong and not why people shouldn't be free to choose euthanasia.
For the longest time, I was against Euthanasia, and I wanted the government to stop euthanasia from happening. I couldn't understand why people would give up on their lives, and that they should just fight for their only life. This was my morality.
MY MORALITY. Now I understand that what I believe, and how I treat my life, should not be enforced on other people. If the government makes a law against euthanasia; they're effectivly saying 'our morality replaces your morality when it comes to your life choices.'
There are two options: Fight for your life and suffer, or die peacefully. Most of us would choose the first one. Exactly, most of us, so we shouldn't make a law against the minority who have a different morality.
"So you wouldn't try to stop a teen suicide? What's the difference?!"
The teen hasn't finished their learning stage. An 80 year old man in the hospital is definately more wise. Same reason why people under 18 don't have the same rights as adults, because they aren't done learning about the world.
"There is just something completely wrong about supporting suicide!"
I am supporting the freedom of the person, and the fact that they have the right to make choices about their lives, especially in critical condition in a hospital.
"Euthanasia is a slippery slope!"
LIFE IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. No matter where you are in the world, what your doing, what the rules are, not everything will go right! Whatever laws the government makes, will sometimes be broken. Whatever freedoms people have will sometimes be abused, etc. There is no such thing as a slope that isn't somewhat slippery, because life is not perfect.
"Won't there be cases of family members putting their relatives to sleep because they just want to inherit wealth?"
Obviously, bad things happen. But the government can put rules and regulations in place to make sure that it is as safe as it possibly can be. Maybe when people turn a certain age, they can answer a paper from the government asking 'If you are unconcience and extremely old and sick at a hospital, and there haven't been signs of recovery for x weeks, would you want to be euthanized?'
In Oregon, ONLY 525 euthanasia caused deaths happened from 1998-2010. 467 of them were over 55 years old, which is 88%. 424 of these people had malignant neoplasms, which is the real medical word for cancer. That is 80% of the people who chose to euthanize themselves.
If you call this a dangerous slippery slope, I call you blind to reality.
I am pro-euthanasia, becauseI understand that my morality doesn't override someone elses morality when it comes to decisions about their own life.
I am pro-euthanasia, because the government doesn't have a right to force suffering on people.
I am pro-euthanasia, because I walk with my feet, I eat and talk with my mouth, I breathe with my lungs. The government doesnt walk with my feet, eat or talk with my mouth, or breathe with my lungs, so why should they stop me from doing what I want to do, when I'm the one living in my body?
"To legalize assistance in suicide is also inconsistent with the same fundamental tenet of a just legal system The decriminalization of suicide (and attempted suicide, therefore) makes sense if we contemplate the plight of people having to face criminal proceedings after failed suicide attempts. Decriminalization motivated by the desire to ease the plight of such people does not, however, imply that the law takes a neutral view of the choice to carry out suicide. Those who attempt suicide are clearly moved by the (at least transient) belief that their lives are no longer worthwhile. Since just legal arrangements rest on a belief in the ineliminable worth of every human life, the law must reject the reasonableness of a choice which is so motivated.
Hence the law must also refuse to accommodate the behaviour of those who effectively endorse the choice of the suicide: for they too are acting on the view that the person they are helping no longer has a worthwhile life. Their behaviour would not be sufficiently explained if one were to say that they were acting 'out of friendship' or 'out of compassion'. For how could the motives of the person assisting in suicide be described as 'friendship' or 'compassion' if they were not informed by the thought that the person intending to kill himself would be better off dead? If one thought this person could continue to have a worthwhile life it would hardly be an act of friendship, for example, to help him kill himself.
So there is reason to resist the legalization of assisted suicide as fundamental as the first reason given for resisting the legalization of euthanasia.
3. If voluntary euthanasia is legalized then the most compelling reason for opposing the legalization of non-voluntary euthanasia has been abandoned Many of those who support the legalization of voluntary euthanasia are opposed to the legalization of non-voluntary euthanasia. But if we cannot make sense of the claim that euthanasia is a benefit to the person to be killed without relying on the thought that that person no longer has a worthwhile life, then supporters of voluntary euthanasia are buying into a larger package-deal than they perhaps realise. For if one can be benefited by being killed, is it reasonable to deprive people of that benefit simply because they are incapable of asking to be killed? And if we are puzzled (rightly) by the claim that someone might be benefited by having his life ended, we might nonetheless accept the claim that a person cannot be harmed by having his worthless life ended.
In fact the most active and clear-sighted advocates of the legalization of voluntary euthanasia are also advocates of the legalization of non-voluntary euthanasia. They promote the view that many human beings lack the 'moral standing' (what is here called 'basic dignity') in virtue of which they enjoy basic human rights; so they cannot be wronged even if the motive for killing them is merely the convenience of those human beings who do have 'moral standing'. The whole exercise of drawing a line between human beings who do and those who do not possess 'moral standing' is utterly arbitrary. Advocates of the legalization of euthanasia, such as the philosophers Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse, who embrace such arbitrariness, do so without any evident concern for the subversion of the foundations of justice which the arbitrariness entails."
BTW here's your germany proof. http://isurvived.org... (The next rounds I will forfeit)
Rebuttal and Conclusion
My opponent says that I cannot be reasoned with in the case of the law and the government, therefore he doesn't want to go further into the debate.
It's not that I can't be reasoned with, my opponent still has not proven that euthanasia should be illegal.
Before I dig into his text, I would like to point that he copied and pasted his points from a website, and therefore he doesn't deserve to win the debate.
"To legalize assistance in suicide is also inconsistent with the same fundamental tenet of a just legal system The decriminalization of suicide (and attempted suicide, therefore) makes sense if we contemplate the plight of people having to face criminal proceedings after failed suicide attempts. Decriminalization motivated by the desire to ease the plight of such people does not, however, imply that the law takes a neutral view of the choice to carry out suicide. Those who attempt suicide are clearly moved by the (at least transient) belief that their lives are no longer worthwhile. Since just legal arrangements rest on a belief in the ineliminable worth of every human life, the law must reject the reasonableness of a choice which is so motivated."
In this paragraph my opponent (the site he copied and pasted from) is basically saying 'euthanasia should be illegal because it is illegal.' He is saying that since the law rests on the belief of inalienable (not ilneliminable) worth of every human life, the law must reject the reasonableness of a choice which is motivated because of a bad condition resulting in euthanasia. The inalienable worth of every life, is inalienable because we are all equal, which makes our choices equal, which should make euthanasia a legal choice. No, the law shouldn't reject a choice which is motivated by a bad condition, just because we are all humans... that is an argument that doesn't make sense.
"Hence the law must also refuse to accommodate the behaviour of those who effectively endorse the choice of the suicide: for they too are acting on the view that the person they are helping no longer has a worthwhile life.Their behaviour would not be sufficiently explained if one were to say that they were acting 'out of friendship' or 'out of compassion'. For how could the motives of the person assisting in suicide be described as 'friendship' or 'compassion' if they were not informed by the thought that the person intending to kill himself would be better off dead? If one thought this person could continue to have a worthwhile life it would hardly be an act of friendship, for example, to help him kill himself."
In this paragraph my opponent shows why he is not open to other peoples choices. He says that people who help others in euthanasia shouldn't be considered friends. Anyway, this doesn't prove why euthanasia should be illegal.
"They promote the view that many human beings lack the 'moral standing' (what is here called 'basic dignity') in virtue of which they enjoy basic human rights; so they cannot be wronged even if the motive for killing them is merely the convenience of those human beings who do have 'moral standing'. The whole exercise of drawing a line between human beings who do and those who do not possess 'moral standing' is utterly arbitrary"
This statement from my opponent states that people who want to be euthanized lack 'moral standing'. It then says that people who are pro-euthanasia, want to draw a line between human beings who are not and are moral. NO, this is not what pro-euthanasia people think. Coming from a mouth of someone who is against euthanasia, it shows that anti-euthanasia supporters automatically consider people who choose euthanasia immoral, and therefore it should be illegal. Pro-euthanasia supporters acknowledge that everyone has different morality, and that they have the right to exercise it when making decisions about their own lives.
"But if we cannot make sense of the claim that euthanasia is a benefit to the person to be killed without relying on the thought that that person no longer has a worthwhile life, then supporters of voluntary euthanasia are buying into a larger package-deal than they perhaps realise."
My opponent is basically saying that just because a life is doomed to death, it should not be euthanized, and that people who support it are 'buying into a larger package-deal than they perhaps realise'. Once again, according to my opponent, everyone who is for euthanasia is not thinking properly. Anti-euthanasia supporters are close-minded. This is not a reason to make euthanasia illegal, therefore this is not a valid point.
My opponent showed us the website he used for his 'Germany proof'. This website is concerning the holocaust and the euthanization of people, without their choice. The Germans used this to kill people who were not their 'master race' This is murder, and this is not what we're talking about. And, you can't compare my statistics from modern day Oregon, to the holocaust.
To conclude, vote Pro because my opponent was unable to prove why euthanasia should be illegal. His points were copy pasted off of a site, and his statistics were from the holocaust. As pro, I was able to prove that euthanasia should not be illegal, because it's every individuals choice and nobody elses. My opponent is unable to prove that the freedom of choice, should be diminished in the situation of euthanasia.
Dave34 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes, odd choice.
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.