The Instigator
Rockylightning
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Snugglez
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Euthanasia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,973 times Debate No: 15919
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

Rockylightning

Pro

===Definitions===

Euthanasia: "Good death" painless death that is sometimes is categorized as assisted suicide. Includes Passive and Active forms
Incurable Disease: A disease that has no known successful cure.
Painful disease: A disease that inflicts extreme amounts of pain.

IMPORTANT: ONLY TO BE USED WITH INCURABLE ILLNESSES. NOT FOR ANYONE WHO REQUESTS IT.

===Contentions===
1. "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court's recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death.

A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained."

2. "At the Hemlock Society we get calls daily from desperate people who are looking for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives which have lost all quality... Americans should 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 take life without consent."

3. Individuals have a right to die when life becomes excruciating or undignified Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future ahead of them: the gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to ‘control' their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and die with dignity.

Chantal Sebire, a 52- year-old Dijon schoolteacher, suffering from a rare disease that has left her disfigured by facial tumors, said in 2008 to Time magazine: "I no longer accept this enduring pain, and this protruding eye that nothing can be done about. I want to go out celebrating, surrounded by my children, friends, and doctors before I'm put to sleep definitively at dawn."[2]

From the Time article, "Making a Case for Euthanasia". Mar. 15, 2008, "Sebire and her backers retort that preventing her from getting medical assistance to end her life swiftly and painlessly ensures months or years of additional torment from pain. Her death will come, they say, after a long coma that will reduce her to being nothing but an inanimate burden on her family."
Forcing a person to stay on life support in excruciating pain is cruel French President Nicholas Sarkozy said in a 2007 campaign speech, "when I hear debates on euthanasia, I tell myself that while I respect the principles, the convictions, at the bottom of my heart I still say there are limits to the suffering that can be imposed on a human." Euthanasia can be appropriate when a person is no longer themselves. The most sacred element of a person is their identity as individual and a soul. Once this is lost, much of the sanctity and fulfillment in life is lost. While this is not a full justification for euthanasia, it is a salient factor.

4. Individuals have a right to hasten death, not merely to refuse treatment Compassion in Dying v. Washington. United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. March 6, 1996 - "While some people refer to the liberty interest implicated in right-to-die cases as a liberty interest in committing suicide, we do not describe it that way. We use the broader and more accurate terms, 'the right to die,' 'determining the time and manner of one's death,' and 'hastening one's death' for an important reason. The liberty interest we examine encompasses a whole range of acts that are generally not considered to constitute 'suicide.' Included within the liberty interest we examine, is for example, the act of refusing or terminating unwanted medical treatment...

5. * Removing life support causes an excruciating death; euthanasia is more humane The Terri Shiavo case is illustrative of the situation created by the illegality of euthanasia. A choice was made that Terri Shiavo's death was imminent and that should should be allowed to die. Without the option of euthanasia, her feeding tubes were removed, and she was starved to death. How is that more moral than euthanasia? Forcing patients to starve to death or go into cardiac arrest, simply because the option of euthanasia does not exist, is a cruel alternative.

* Euthanasia is better than non-treatment ways to shorten lives and end suffering Doctors are allowed to make non-treatment decisions in special cases in order to shorten the life of a patient and end their suffering. This is a roundabout form of "euthanasia" that causes patients far more harm than a real euthanasia would. Doctors should be allowed to use euthanasia to avoid having to make these Non-Treatment decisions.

* Life can be prolonged unnaturally; euthanasia is a necessary cut-off option Life can be kept "alive" for longer and longer periods with modern technologies and techniques. Is this natural? No. Is it excessive? It certainly can be. When keeping life "alive" becomes an excessive exercise in medicine and technology, a cut-off point become necessary. That cut-off point is euthanasia. This argument will become increasingly relevant into the future, as human-beings are kept alive with dozens of test tubes and transplants.

===Sources===
http://www.time.com......
http://www.euthanasiaprocon.org......
http://www.dignityindying.org.uk......
http://euthanasia.procon.org......
http://euthanasia.procon.org......

===Conclusion===

Imagine you have some type of incredibly painful disease where you feel like you are being skinned alive and burned, would you want to end your suffering? Or would you want to want to live it out in extreme pain and suffering, then die. In any case, it's either die now and not live to see a few more days of your life and have a painless death, or die later, see a few more days of a hospital wall, then die painfully. Which would you choose?
Snugglez

Con

First of all I would like to disagree on the facts on what my opponent is saying. Basically that its okay to die, now don't get me wrong yes to some degree you should do something to save a person's life. Like give more medication or discuss the pro's and con's of a situation, not end it. By doing that your giving up that person or animal right to live. Case in point for example if someone were pregnant and gotten an abortion don't you think that the fetus, has the right to live. But that would be a different debate on why a baby should live, so how is this much different. Just like you have a right as a human being to vote, would you want someone to take your rights away from you.
A man name Jacob Kevorkian is famous for the vicious acts a pond humans witch you brought up Jacob "Jack" Kevorkian born May 26, 1928 is an Armenian-American pathologist, right-to-die activist, painter, composer, and instrumentalist. He is best known for publicly championing a terminal patients right to die via physician-assisted suicide; he claims to have assisted at least 130 patients to that end. He famously said that "dying is not a crime.
its also not a choice, Beginning in 1999 Kevorkian served eight years of a 10-to-25-year prison sentence for second-degree murder. He was released on parole on June 1, 2007, on condition that he would not offer suicide advice to any other person. There was a statement that my opponent used stating that patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained ,so I ask you cannot be sustained or cant be tolerated.
European declaration of human rights not to be forced to suffer. so if I wanted to hang myself would that be right it still means the same thing ,just that the person who is suffering actually is doing the wrongful crime of killing them self. But in the bible it clearly states in exodus 20:13 you shall not murder.
And also my opponent mentioned a women named Chantal sebire a 52 year old women who wanted to die around her family, friends and doctors you cant judge one person decision and pin it on the rest of the society, like if one person eats fried chicken doesn't mean we all do. But since you talk so much about the pro's in your debate ,lets talk about the con's .Chantal wanted to die in in peace in front of family doctors and etc.. But don't you think doctors had a little bit to do with her decision. That lady had kids who need her as a provider ,a role model and if you were to put your self in there shoes this debate would be relevant. And also Terri shiavo's death was to remove her feeding tubes she was starved to death is that dying with dignity.
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Pro

===Refutations===

1. "Case in point for example if someone were pregnant and gotten an abortion don't you think that the fetus, has the right to live. But that would be a different debate on why a baby should live, so how is this much different."

Euthanasia is different from abortion. Abortion is ending an unborn fetus's life because the parent(s) do not want the baby. Euthanasia is ending one's own life to end your own suffering.

2. "Kevorkian" Jack Kevorkian assisted ending the lives of people who had no hope of coming out of their disease, and were in extreme pain. Ending the lives of those in extreme pain who are going to die anyway, painlessly is a very humane act. Please refute this.

3. "European declaration of human rights not to be forced to suffer. so if I wanted to hang myself would that be right it still means the same thing ,just that the person who is suffering actually is doing the wrongful crime of killing them self. But in the bible it clearly states in exodus 20:13 you shall not murder"

I clearly defined Euthanasia as ONLY TO BE USED WITH INCURABLE ILLNESSES. (In all caps). If you wanted to hang yourself that is not euthanasia for two reasons. ONE: it is not medically facilitated. TWO: You don't have an incurable illness.

Yes, the bible states you shall not murder, but Euthanasia is not murder. It is the humane ending of someone who is suffering. And realistically, should we base the whole world's policies on the writings on some book of myths?

4. "And also my opponent mentioned a women named Chantal sebire a 52 year old women who wanted to die around her family, friends and doctors you cant judge one person decision and pin it on the rest of the society."

Euthanasia won't be mandatory, I thought that was understood. If one person requests it, give it to them, if one person refuses it, don't. Its that simple.

5. "like if one person eats fried chicken doesn't mean we all do." Terrible analogy.


6. But don't you think doctors had a little bit to do with her decision. That lady had kids who need her as a provider ,a role model and if you were to put your self in there shoes this debate would be relevant.

7. "And also Terri shiavo's death was to remove her feeding tubes she was starved to death is that dying with dignity?"

EXACTLY! This is how people are "put out of their misery" today. WITHOUT euthanasia.



(No new contentions).


===CONCLUSION===
1. My opponent has left many of my points unrefuted.
2. The points she did refute were poorly refuted and have been refuted by me.
3. My opponent stated NO SOURCES.
4. I have stated five reliable sources.
5. My points still stand.




I urge a vote for pro.

Snugglez

Con

I see my opponent doesn't cut the new fish any slack so if he wants fact sources real hard core proof here it goes first off im going to brake down each topic so were gonna start off with right to die "The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause." Patient Suffering at End-of-Life "Activists often claim that laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are government mandated suffering. But this claim would be similar to saying that laws against selling contaminated food are government mandated starvation.
Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer."
Slippery Slope to Legalized Murder "In a society as obsessed with the costs of health care and the principle of utility, the dangers of the slippery slope... are far from fantasy...
Assisted suicide is a half-way house, a stop on the way to other forms of direct euthanasia, for example, for incompetent patients by advance directive or suicide in the elderly. So, too, is voluntary euthanasia a half-way house to involuntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia. If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent? Why need we ask for consent? Hippocratic Oath and Prohibition of Killing "The prohibition against killing patients... stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as medicine's primary taboo: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect'... In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can make killing him right. For the physician, at least, human life in living bodies commands respect and reverence--by its very nature. As its respectability does not depend upon human agreement or patient consent, revocation of one's consent to live does not deprive one's living body of respectability. The deepest ethical principle restraining the physician's power is not the autonomy or freedom of the patient; neither is it his own compassion or good intention. Rather, it is the dignity and mysterious power of human life itself, and therefore, also what the Oath calls the purity and holiness of life and art to which he has sworn devotion." Government Involvement in End-of-Life Decisions "Cases like Schiavo's touch on basic constitutional rights, such as the right to live and the right to due process, and consequently there could very well be a legitimate role for the federal government to play. There's a precedent--as a result of the highly publicized deaths of infants with disabilities in the 1980s, the federal government enacted 'Baby Doe Legislation,' which would withhold federal funds from hospitals that withhold lifesaving treatment from newborns based on the expectation of disability. The medical community has to have restrictions on what it may do to people with disabilities - we've already seen what some members of that community are willing to do when no restrictions are in place." Palliative (End-of-Life) Care "Studies show that hospice-style palliative care 'is virtually unknown in the Netherlands [where euthanasia is legal].' There are very few hospice facilities, very little in the way of organized hospice activity, and few specialists in palliative care, although some efforts are now under way to try and jump-start the hospice movement in that country...
The widespread availability of euthanasia in the Netherlands may be another reason for the stunted growth of the Dutch hospice movement. As one Dutch doctor is reported to have said, 'Why should I worry about palliation when I have euthanasia?'" Healthcare Spending Implications "Savings to governments could become a consideration. Drugs for assisted suicide cost about $35 to $45, making them far less expensive than providing medical care. This could fill the void from cutbacks for treatment and care with the 'treatment' of death." Social Groups at Risk of Abuse "It must be recognized that assisted suicide and euthanasia will be practiced through the prism of social inequality and prejudice that characterizes the delivery of services in all segments of society, including health care. Those who will be most vulnerable to abuse, error, or indifference are the poor, minorities, and those who are least educated and least empowered. This risk does not reflect a judgment that physicians are more prejudiced or influenced by race and class than the rest of society - only that they are not exempt from the prejudices manifest in other areas of our collective life.
While our society aspires to eradicate discrimination and the most punishing effects of poverty in employment practices, housing, education, and law enforcement, we consistently fall short of our goals. The costs of this failure with assisted suicide and euthanasia would be extreme. Nor is there any reason to believe that the practices, whatever safeguards are erected, will be unaffected by the broader social and medical context in which they will be operating. This assumption is naive and unsupportable." Religious Concerns "As Catholic leaders and moral teachers, we believe that life is the most basic gift of a loving God- a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion. Our tradition, declaring a moral obligation to care for our own life and health and to seek such care from others, recognizes that we are not morally obligated to use all available medical procedures in every set of circumstances. But that tradition clearly and strongly affirms that as a responsible steward of life one must never directly intend to cause one's own death, or the death of an innocent victim, by action or omission...
We call on Catholics, and on all persons of good will, to reject proposals to legalize euthanasia." Living Wills "Not only are we awash in evidence that the prerequisites for a successful living wills policy are unachievable, but there is direct evidence that living wills regularly fail to have their intended effect...
When we reviewed the five conditions for a successful program of living wills, we encountered evidence that not one condition has been achieved or, we think, can be. First, despite the millions of dollars lavished on propaganda, most people do not have living wills... Second, people who sign living wills have generally not thought through its instructions in a way we should want for life-and-death decisions... Third, drafters of living wills have failed to offer people the means to articulate their preferences accurately... Fourth, living wills too often do not reach the people actually making decisions for incompetent patients... Fifth, living wills seem not to increase the accuracy with which surrogates identify patients' preferences."
Roughly speaking, there are two major views about euthanasia. The traditional view holds that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, but that given certain circumstances it is permissible to withhold or withdraw treatment and allow a patient to die. A more recent, radical view is embraced by groups such as the Hemlock Society and the Society for the Right to Die. It denies that there is a morally significant distinction between passive and active euthanasia allows the former and forbids the latter. Accordingly, this view argues that mercy killing, assisted suicide, and the like are permissible.
The issues surrounding the euthanasia debate are tips of a much larger iceberg.
www.afterall.net
www.google.com
I Vote For Con
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Pro

First off, welcome audience to the third round of the debate. If you've read it all thanks so much!!!

Back to business.

==Notes==

My opponent's sources are "afterall.net" and "google.com". Afterall seems like a blog on varying subjects with no real credibility and google.com is a search engine....which, if you follow my link to google.com has no information on euthanasia (click link).
http://www.google.com...

More importantly, it seems my opponent has plagarized her whole argument from a debatapedia article (
http://debatepedia.idebate.org...).

Please note this in voting.


===Refutations===

"I see my opponent doesn't cut the new fish any slack...."
Sorry


"Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer."

Medicines to help osteoperosis are not, and never have been, intended to cause suicidal thoughts, stroke, and death. Just because it wasn't intended to do something doesnt mean that it's innocent of all accusations.


"Savings to governments could become a consideration. Drugs for assisted suicide cost about $35 to $45, making them far less expensive than providing medical care. This could fill the void from cutbacks for treatment and care with the 'treatment' of death."

The ammount of money saved from not keeping this people suffering is tremendous and widely outweighs the cost of the drug.


"While our society aspires to eradicate discrimination and the most punishing effects of poverty in employment practices, housing, education, and law enforcement, we consistently fall short of our goals. The costs of this failure with assisted suicide and euthanasia would be extreme."

Please explain in your own words how euthanasia will discriminate against minorities.

"We call on Catholics, and on all persons of good will, to reject proposals to legalize euthanasia"

First off, I realize this statement is plagarized but at least read what you paste. Secondly, asking a certain religious group to vote for something because they have "good will" is discriminating against other sects, RIGHT what you were complaining about 2 quotations above.

"When we reviewed the five conditions for a successful program of living wills, we encountered evidence that not one condition has been achieved or, we think, can be."

"We think"? Premierly, who's we? Secondly, we think is an opinion.


"First, despite the millions of dollars lavished on propaganda, most people do not have living wills"

With euthanasia legalization, this will change.

"Second, people who sign living wills have generally not thought through its instructions in a way we should want for life-and-death decisions"

Same As Above.

"Third, drafters of living wills have failed to offer people the means to articulate their preferences accurately"

Same as two above.

"Fourth, living wills too often do not reach the people actually making decisions for incompetent patients... Fifth, living wills seem not to increase the accuracy with which surrogates identify patients' preferences."

All this will change, people will be forced to change their ways if the need arises. If euthanasia is legalized it will be needed that people change.






===Conclusion===
Con has failed to provide any legitimate source.
Con has failed to refute any of my points or refutations.
Con has plagarized an entire round's worth of contentions.



--==VOTING_GUIDE==--
Conduct: Pro: Con has plagarized a whole round of information, mostly from a biased writer.

Spelling and Grammar: Pro: "
I see my opponent doesn't cut the new fish any slack so if he wants fact sources real hard core proof here it goes first off im going to brake down each topic so were gonna start off with right to die " ~Con

Arguments: Pro: Con has failed to refute any of my points or refutations, while her points are all refuted.

Sources: Pro: Con has plagarized an entire round's worth of contentions. Not only that, but her two stated sources are google, and afterall.net (a search engine and a blog).



Thank you for a very interesting debate.

And for these reasons, Pro has clearly won the debate.


Snugglez

Con

Snugglez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
DONT FORFEIT,,,hl
Posted by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
Agree with below.
Posted by duckiejen23 5 years ago
duckiejen23
@snuggles: I disagree with you. It's not that this debate is necessarily tough, it is that you are not yet able to fully express your ideas in a means that is understandable to the judges. There is a vast amount of legal doctrine that is on your side. However, without research, paragraphs, grammar, proof reading, practice, and correct quote and citation usage, you suffer from serious disadvantage.

I'm sure you'll get better with time.
Posted by Bob_Gneu 5 years ago
Bob_Gneu
Can you provide us with direct links to your sources?
Posted by Snugglez 5 years ago
Snugglez
thank you guys on your instructive criticism but this guy is really tough but even if he does win i tried my best and i know better next time and i did learn a lot about this topic that's why i excepted it so thank you again guys and read my round 2 see what you think
Posted by Bob_Gneu 5 years ago
Bob_Gneu
and by odd, i mean to point to Google's stance on any political issue. They don't likely have a stance on euthanasia. As a search engine it is not often that they put forth any opinions.
Posted by Bob_Gneu 5 years ago
Bob_Gneu
@Snugglez
Thank you for your sources, but it would be better to cite the exact page of a website, book or journal. Citing these two websites in general requires the opposition to be far more diligent in reading through your citations, and it allows for assumption to creep into place (as when a website may have multiple documents on a subject, your opponent will likely only look into one).

Citing Google is ... odd. Do you have the google.com citation handy? What did you search for and which of the results did you choose?
Posted by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
@duckiejen23

I started the debate.
Posted by duckiejen23 5 years ago
duckiejen23
+1 with Bob-Gneu

@Snugglez: What a great topic! Unfortunately, the lack of cohesiveness in your writing style makes this debate incredibly difficult to give you the vote. Inconsistent grammar and spelling errors portray your credibility poorly even when you have a legitimate point to make. Debates like this require great attention to detail and striving off path makes it easy for your opponent to take the edge.
Posted by Bob_Gneu 5 years ago
Bob_Gneu
?!

The grammar of a poet... is clearly not up to snuff. I think this is why people need to be educated before they are allowed to come onto the internet. =\

Good show @Rockylighting, keep it up and you have my vote.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
RockylightningSnugglezTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: KfC
Vote Placed by Bob_Gneu 5 years ago
Bob_Gneu
RockylightningSnugglezTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Hands down. Time to rehash it to someone new.
Vote Placed by Switchlapse 5 years ago
Switchlapse
RockylightningSnugglezTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: good debate