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

Euthanasia shouldn't be carried out by medical workers

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 954 times Debate No: 64820
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Medical workers are not licensed to harm or murder anyone as it says on their Hippocratic Oath. They also have certain code of ethic and moral principles that also prohibits them harming others. Additionally, other people have certain sense of guilt about murdering, and they medical workers cannot be expected to do that. Alternatively, non medical stuff (such as execution squad, police etc) should be instructed to euthanise by medical staff.


I accept.

Who else would be medically qualified to administer a drug into a person's body. The police don't have the training or the right to do so. An execution squad, why waste time, energy, rescourses, money, and man power on something one man could do?
Debate Round No. 1


Why waste your money to avoid doing something immoral? Executioners already apply lethal injection as a death penalty, I see no reason why shouldn't they also be responsible for euthanasia. Again, medical workers are not licensed to kill even if it means to ease the pain.


To start I would like everyone to read the Hippocratic Code:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

No where does it state that a doctor and/or medical personell can not be carried out by Euthanasia.

A lot of people think that euthanasia or assisted suicide is needed so patients won’t be forced to remain alive by being “hooked up” to machines. But the law already permits patients or their surrogates to withhold or withdraw unwanted medical treatment even if that increases the likelihood that the patient will die. Thus, no one needs to be hooked up to machines against their will.

Neither the law nor medical ethics requires that “everything be done” to keep a person alive. Insistence, against the patient’s wishes, that death be postponed by every means available is contrary to law and practice. It is also cruel and inhumane.

There comes a time when continued attempts to cure are not compassionate, wise, or medically sound. That’s when hospice, including in-home hospice care, can be of great help. That is the time when all efforts should be directed to making the patient’s remaining time comfortable. Then, all interventions should be directed to alleviating pain and other symptoms as well as to providing emotional and spiritual support for both the patient and the patient’s loved ones.


Debate Round No. 2


First things first, the link you added is broken so you can't prove that version of Hippocratic Oath is actually in use.

Here's the originial version:

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius the surgeon, likewise Hygeia and Panacea, and call all the gods and goddesses to witness, that I will observe and keep this underwritten oath, to the utmost of my power and judgment.

I will reverence my master who taught me the art. Equally with my parents, will I allow him things necessary for his support, and will consider his sons as brothers. I will teach them my art without reward or agreement; and I will impart all my acquirements, instructions, and whatever I know, to my master's children, as to my own; and likewise to all my pupils, who shall bind and tie themselves by a professional oath, but to none else.

With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.

Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will get no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.

Further, I will comport myself and use my knowledge in a godly manner.

I will not cut for the stone, but will commit that affair entirely to the surgeons.

Whatsoever house I may enter, my visit shall be for the convenience and advantage of the patient; and I will willingly refrain from doing any injury or wrong from falsehood, and (in an especial manner) from acts of an amorous nature, whatever may be the rank of those who it may be my duty to cure, whether mistress or servant, bond or free.

Whatever, in the course of my practice, I may see or hear (even when not invited), whatever I may happen to obtain knowledge of, if it be not proper to repeat it, I will keep sacred and secret within my own breast.

If I faithfully observe this oath, may I thrive and prosper in my fortune and profession, and live in the estimation of posterity; or on breach thereof, may the reverse be my fate!
"The Hippocratic Oath". The London Medical Repository 23 (135): 258. 1 March 1825. Retrieved 22 September 2014.. For the Greek text, see Jones, W. H. S., ed. (1868). Hippocrates Collected Works (in Greek) I. Cambridge Harvard University Press. pp. 130"131.

Where it clearly says:
With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.

Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will get no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.

Furthermore, by discussing the right of patients to refuse medical care (and if we ignore your spelling difficulties "No where"), you just proved that you have no idea what you're talking about. Disabling life support machines does not fall within euthanasia as everyone has a right for natural death. Namely, euthanasia represents deliberately causing death by applying certain medications to a seriously ill person that suffers great deal of suffering and pain.


I agologize that my link was broken, this one should work.;

My opponet has given the original Hippocratic Oath as evidence for his claims. This shouldn't be taken into account for one simple reason, it has been rewritten many times over the years. So why would we use an out dated oath. In fact only 14 percent of modern oaths prohibit euthanasia, 11 percent hold convenant with a deity, 8 percent foreswear abortion, and a mere 3 percent forbid sexual contact with patients—all maxims held sacred in the classical version. The original calls for free tuition for medical students and for doctors never to "use the knife" (that is, conduct surgical procedures)—both obviously out of step with modern-day practice. Perhaps most telling, while the classical oath calls for "the opposite" of pleasure and fame for those who transgress the oath, fewer than half of oaths taken today insist the taker be held accountable for keeping the pledge.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by carriead20 2 years ago
I would like to apologize to everyone that the link did not work.
Posted by Duncan 2 years ago
The original Hippocratic oath swore on gods such as Apollo. It's changed in the past, perhaps it could change again. If inaction causes more harm, then shouldn't the doctor act with the patients best interests in mind? To either give them the chance of life or cease their suffering. Yes, to ask a person of healing to harm is a difficult decision, but to stand idly by while another is in pain could be as bad as causing harm.Not really interested in doing this debate as these kinds of debates take research I'm not quite prepared for, but I wanted to open up some discussion.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
And now that I have done my research, doctors do not even perform this procedure as is, they are merely there to pronounce them dead.

Only one incident happened when a doctor was asked to help find a deep vein due to issue with finding the vein initially.

In this ONE AND ONLY incident, the Georgia Medical Board passed laws protecting doctors if they are to be involved in a lethal execution
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
If something were to go wrong during the lethal injection, those handling the procedure can be sued for malpractice.

Would this lawsuit be charged to the person initiating the procedure (in your case: a separate executioner) or the medical staff instructing the executioner?

Keep in mind, if it is the executioner, they must then have their own malpractice insurance through their employer (the city/state/prison in which they reside) which would increase payments to an insurance company DRASTICALLY because this so called executioner cannot be a medical-based employee.
So no one would go for this option.

Secondly, if the medical personnel instructing on this execution is to the target of any possible malpractice suits, their insurance (which they already have) would increase. Which they would not like.
AND if this medical personnel is to be the target of a malpractice suit on a procedure they are NOT EVEN DOING, no one would ever agree to instruct on this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nicoszon_the_Great 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It struck me that Pro worded the point of the broken link as though it honestly hurt Con's argument, it's not as though the audience has access to the internet so if proving the point that his reference is that important to the reader he can google it himself so the argument wasn't exactly hurt. Beyond that I found Con's argument held sturdy and therefor wins my agreement and a convincing argument point, however sources, spelling, and conduct were rather acceptable from both sides.