Euthanasia. Cruel killing or relief
Debate Rounds (2)
Secondly, I ask you to follow the basic rules of debates.
To be honest, I do not see an euthanasia as a controversial question or why people feel ambivalent about it.
For me, the only reason to hesitate is a question of morality, moreover, for some, it's a question of religion. However, emotional pain which may last for God-knows how long does not even stand near the physical condition of patient who is terminally ill. That's why euthanasia is also know as "mercy killing", because it relieves pain and suffer from patient. Next, this decision is made by patient himself or his agent, of course, patient can be not sane enough to make such a step, but it should not be a concern for doctors or even family, after all, it is his right to decide and by leaving a "living will" he takes full responsibility.
Next point is that it is simply a question of money to prolong treatment or to hold patient connected to the life support system. Even if patient undergoes treatment on governmental money, still money of disinterested party are wasted. And again, living in a constant pain is not a life.
Let's not forget - killing is a possible solution for suffering, but it's a constant solution to a probably temporary problem.
Secondly, unless the situation is considered hopeless by professionals, the feelings of patients/relatives about the situation should not affect and get in the way of the process of treatment, that is also the main reason of medics not giving away details of some cases. While in reality the condition might not be that intense, (especially in cases where not the patient himself decides to end his life) one can easily exaggerate the situation in accordance of his bias towards the condition causing too much for the patient to bear.
Which brings us to the next , more philosophical question - "what is too much to bear?". Especially in cases when the patient isn't very old, if this the last thing one experiences in life, would one rather give in to pain and surrender or stand up until the very end. After all, one's life is at stake, and usually life is the dearest one has. Even if the chances are minimal, choice is still there - die now, or suffer and have a chance to live.
http://www.sccm.org... And generally, in those occasions patience don't have a chance to live.
Secondly, well, anything can be erroneous: starting from daily routine issues to a decision to prosecution. Which brings me to the question, how can you know it was a mistake if we consider that diagnosis is right as other procedures? That is just vague idea, something that can't be known after it's done.
Moreover, euthanasia is conducted by professionals, so that to prevent a regretful decision as killing oneself in vain.
Philosophical questions are all treated differently with the accordance of someone's beliefs. Not saying that this point is not right, but other questions might pop up, like the question of existence and the need to live life, and they are all perceived differently.
What I want to say is that people should struggle till the very bearable end, but I don't think that such a solution must be prohibited.
kassym123 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: con gave up in the last round
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.