Debate Rounds (5)
I. Will it be only for terminally I'll people?
Generally speaking, sicknesses that cause long term problems lead to anguish, and people think unplugging them would "end suffering". The problem, however, is that terminal is ill defined. Many doctors claim it means death within 6 months. Others think its something that hurts you for more then a day. Though that's faulty as a flu can last longer then a day. You get the point. The definition had not been given. Though it's debated still in the length of time it takes for a patient to die. Meaning euthansia would mean you may live fine for months before you die. It's also impossible to guess. Euthansia.com notes, "Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is referred to, medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally ill don't die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. Increasingly, however, euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, replacing them with such phrases as "hopelessly ill," "desperately ill," "incurably ill," "hopeless condition," and "meaningless life." [1. http://www.euthanasia.com...]
Further, many claim it is a personal choice. Though many of these patients are not terminally ill. Many are depressed. They just want to die a legal way. This leads to my next point.
===Most patients wanting death are depressed===
Sorry if this sucks--Im on a phone so I will quote a lot--just a warning.
The American Journal of Psychiatry notes, "The striking feature of [our] results is that all of the patients who had either desired premature death or contemplated suicide were judged to be suffering from clinical depressive illness; that is, none of those patients who did not have clinical depression had thoughts of suicide or wished that death would come early." [2. http://www.nrlc.org...]
It has been shown these patients depression makes them irrational. Many of their sicknesses are treatable but the depression makes them irrational. Instead of living they choose death. Proper research and care heals these desires and is a better response to promoting suicide .
Depression thinks for you, makes you do irrational things. Curing the depression much of the time can reverse these thoughts. And, therefore, euthanasia is NOT the option they would want when not affected by a brain problem... Meaning its quasi involuntary.
===Research > Euthansia===
Again on a phone. Quoting is easier. Next round I will have better argunments.
"One-half of the cancer drugs in the last three years have made it to the market within six months."
Imagine, someone does assisted suicide... Before their death deadline effective treatments come up.
I have shown most patients would not choose death if treated properly, and the definition of terminal sets a large ethical problem to euthanasia. It is, therefore, not in their interests to die or true wants and, therefore, would be like suicide (or murder). Many people die if cancer each day. Patients in hospitals play a large role in research, and killing them puts research back a long way and, therefore, causes many others to die. This effectively negates the resolution.
While many people think suicide is just a teenage's/ young adult's mind set, the eldery by far commit the most suicide according to statistics. See, many of the eldery look ahead in life, all they see in disease, pain and loneliness in front of them. Sadly, suicide can never be stopped. So, I ask, which sounds more humane, overdose, cutting one's wrist, a bullet to the head or a lethal injection in a stable, compassionate hospital? All end in sadness I guess, but would you rather see someone's wall splattered with blood from a clumsy suicide attepmt or saying your last goodbye to a loved one, ending his life with dignity and happiness?
My opponent claims we could fix the problem by more laws and regulations. Though this doesn't help, at all. We could name multiple cancers and other "terminal" sicknesses, though we would still have to define terminal. And it is impossible we would include all of the terminal illnesses and, therefore, still deprive the right my opponent claims exists, and the benefit of ending "pain" would be nonexistant. Further, his point fails to rebut my point when looking at it from a proper angle. Even though terminal would likely be defined as diagnosed with death from 6 months or earlier. Basically speeding up the process. But no regulations account for false diagnosis, or the fact it is impossible to guess how long you could live. When these 6 month notions are discussed by doctors, one thing stands out: all of them agree this diagnosis is not set in stone. There is many a case where they say six months, and those not choosing suicide can live or years on end. This means corruption, if this can be labeled corruption like my opponent has, will always exist.
Also, I d not see how having multiple doctors or family consent helps the problem. If both doctors think its six months, and the family says pull the plug, and as does the patient, how does this jump the hurtle of my argument? All doctors have agreed their diagnosis's can be wrong and when they say you will die in X time that the diagnosis is usually wrong . I dont see how two doctors having a diagnosis that is usually an underestimate will help anything...
How would a psychologist matter? Even if they are depressed, it is still legal to kill them . So whether or not a psychologist is present is irrelevant. And if you make it illegal to depression, his is a contradiction to your own round one arguments. And, killing these people prevents proper treatment and research which in the long run harms society .
My opponent then claims old people have higher suicide. Guess what? I actually agree--this helps my case--this argument shows more old people are depressed... Most people with terminal illnesses are depressed... and most of them are elderly. It does not refute my case, rather is a direct line of observation supporting it .
My opponent then plays a false appeal to emotion. "would you rather see blood or a sleeping death!" The funny thing is, euthanasia has the same result, and not using euthanasia means no one dies. "[E]ffective psychotherapeutic treatment is possible with the terminally ill, and only irrational prejudices prevent the greater resort to such measures [and or it is irrational to kill them]." -- So lets use a counter argument my opponent ignores. Would you rather have a dead man or a living man as they gave him depression medication and he gets to live for three more years?
But wait, my opponent has a good point. Let him die to save him the pain! Who cares if he can be healed. Its therefore still more humane, right? This shows medical illiteracy. Proper treatment not only prolongs their life, but is effective in making pain disappear or negligible .
Euthanasia prevents proper treatment.
Euthanasia does end depression, but for a price. Proper treatment^ fixes the problem and prolongs a life
Proper treatment makes that prolonged life enjoyable
"[T]reatable depression, rather than the terminal illness itself, usually accounts for such a patient's expression of a wish to die"
He claims we have a right to die with no logic or facts. He merely asserts it and asks us to agree its fact, essentially. International law writes, ‘Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life’." and later an analysis notes, ‘Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life’.
Just because a patient says he wants too does NOT mean he gets too. This circular reasoning my opponent uses is very weak.
PRO has utterly failed to uphold the BOP (which I assume is even). Vote CON.
 - http://www.euthanasia.com...
 - http://www.nrlc.org...
 - http://www.nrlc.org...
 Dr. Brian Pollard "Human rights and Euthansia" 1998
In response to the previous argument of a miracle cure. Euthanasia isn't a decision someone takes lightly obviously. "Should we end treatment?" "Should we consider or overlook possible cures?" all these things go through a patient's mind. The government should not make the decision for the patient. If it's the patient's life he/ she should make the decision. With consent of course.
Saving other lives:
Con, also mentioned we could save lives without euthanasia through research. Surely, with euthanasia lives could also be saved. In two ways actually.....
One way is that vital organs can be saved, allowing doctors to save the lives of others.We have long waiting lists for hearts, kidneys, livers, and other organs that are necessary to save the lives of people who can be saved. Doctor-assisted suicide allows physicians to preserve vital organs that can be donated to others (assuming the patients are organ donors). However, if certain diseases are allowed to run their full course, the organs may weaken or cease to function altogether. Once again, we have to put the needs of the living ahead of the needs of the dying.
Also, nurse and doctor time can be freed up to work on savable patients.We face a critical shortage of medical staff in this country, especially nurses. Recent studies have confirmed the obvious--that understaffed hospitals make more mistakes and provide lesser quality care. And things are only going to get worse as the baby boom generation gets older and life spans increase. We have to ask ourselves if attending to dying patients (who want to die immediately) is the best use of medical staff time. Think of how many lives we can save if that nurse & doctor time is freed up. Think of how much the quality of care would increase.
Give me a reason why a person with depression can't kill themselves. Really, I'm mean if a person wants to kill themselves from depression whose bussiness is it. Your life won't be affected, my life won't affected, the voters' lives won't be affected, unless they are family of a patient of course. Answer to question: Yes, I would rather see the dead man. :)
Pain and anguish of the patient's family and friends can be lessened, and they can say their final goodbyes.Friends and family of the patient often suffer as much or more pain as the patient himself. It's difficult to see a loved one in such anguish for so long. It's emotional and physically draining to have the stress drawn out for so long. And when the patient does eventually die, it's often sudden or it follows a period when the patient has lost consciousness. Doctor-assisted suicide would give the patient a chance to say his final goodbyes and end his life with dignity.
The right to die should be a fundamental freedom of each person.Nowhere in the constitution does it state or imply that the government has the right to keep a person from committing suicide. After all, if the patient and the family agree it's what they want to do, who's business is it anyway? Who else is it going to hurt? In a country that's supposedly free, this should be a fundamental right.
Sources: Balanced Politics
Also, CON, you're taking this way too seriously. It's a debate, not a presidential election. I respect your opinion. Thank you. By the way, the voters can vote for whoever they want. Vote for who you like! :)
“Miracle cure” I assume is in response to the point where, in most cases, we can easily save the patient. You have claimed they think about possible treatment. But this refutes nothing. Patients that have already asked for death, but given cure for depression, stop asking for death. So whether or not they think about it is irrelevant. It has been shown depression, not the patient’s actual wants, controls their view on euthanasia for themselves .
My opponent gives a weak case in life saving. Only 6000 people in the US (that are living) are organ donors. That is 0.002% of the population (using a 300 million number) . And, euthanasia would not save lives this way anyway. With this low percentage anyway. And assume we ban euthanasia. And all of these people are cured. And live for another, say, 15 years. This would cause a continual chain of people dying and donating. Just like how there is a continual change in people dying and being born at once. Does this make sense? If it doesn’t ignore it. My above rebuttal makes sense. And its misleading to call them dying as I have proven throughout the debate nearly 100% of them can be healed. So it’s not really dying, if proper treatment is given.
His second point is patient time. Of those terminally ill, only 40% of the 80 cases where honored. With 80 cases being honored, only about 4% of heavily sick patients get death. This means there are 1800 sick people. Most of which are quickly cured as proven previously. And, spread out amongst 50 states is not much of a burden, even at 1900 level. In reality, this is a very low percentage of people getting medical care so doctor relief would be negligible. Adding 80 people is nothing .
The reason they can’t kill themselves because of depression is self-explanatory. These mental illnesses cloud logic. It literally makes them feel and do things differently. It is this disease, not “pain” that causes them to off themselves. Treating these people for depression would mean nearly all of them would decline euthanasia, thus negating the resolution. This means it is not really consensual. Same logic as the gay crowd *tries* to use. Instead this one works. If they cannot choose the outcome, why should they pay the consequences? If they have no control, then its illogical to penalize them with death which they really don’t want.
My opponent would rather see a dead person then a living healthy one…
Pain and family
This assumes death is the only way out. As science, not mere assertions claiming pain is the only way out, notes, “The better response to patients in pain is not to kill them, but to make sure that the medicine and technology currently available to control pain is used more widely and completely. According to a 1992 manual produced by the Washing ton Medical Association, Pain Management and Care of the Terminal Patient, "adequate interventions exist to control pain in 90 to 99% of patients." The pain objection is weak when looking on things from a scientific perspective. It means it is only justified, if you view pain as a reason to kill people, (using a middle point) about 4% of the time. Meaning banning it, on balance, would have negligible effect. It has also been shown people asking for suicides because of pain have a near 100% success rate as not only medicines are used, but psychological and therapeutic methods are successful as well .
There is no “stress” held out for that long, as we see above (if they take they non-death rout). Having a living person controlling for pain is not draining. Having a dead person is draining to a family.
Ah, yes, but nowhere does it give a right to die either. Therefore your whole point is invalid. And, anyway, there is a right to life meaning they can keep you from dying. Courts have often times upheld these laws and supported malpractice suits towards doctors helping in suicide. Further, the courts acknowledge depression causes people to do irrational acts and, therefore, means there is no compelling reason to let them die. Verdict: no right to die in almost all of these cases .
Further, here is why my case on depression is so vital in this debate. My opponent agrees they are depressed, meaning he agrees there is no right to life! “Those seeking suicide would be legally entitled to be left alone …” Left alone =/= inject the serum and pull the plug. Meaning depressed people have to be left alone. Therefore, there is no legal justification for euthanasia.
My opponent dropped this point, therefore conceding it.
Debate is a serous thing.
 - http://www.nrlc.org...
 - Data from here, percentages my own calculations http://www.donatelifeny.org...
 - Data for how common it is http://euthanasia.procon.org...
 - http://www.nrlc.org...
 - http://www.jaapl.org...
 - http://www.nrlc.org...
As you can see my opponent only keeps mentioning one disease and, that is depression. Sure, depression can be treated. NOT CURED. Yet what about the endless list of still incurable diseases. I thought the cure for cancer was suppose to come in 1985? No wait, 1990? Then 2000? No, 2010? Yet it still has not arrived. Same with HIV/ AIDS, after 32 years of research many people suffering are still patiently waiting. Sure, let them suffer until 2025 when the cure is "predicted" to come. Adding to the argument of depression, consider this, Oregon is one of the three states where euthanasia is legal. My opponent fears that it could be abused. Yet less than 300 people have died from euthanasia from 1998-2005. If people have the chance to abuse it, why haven't they done it. If people with depression used euthanasia, that number should be higher, but it's not.
My opponent also mentioned that the organ donations are very insignificant, and that it leads to a vicious cycle of one dies, one lives. Unfortunately, for him, that is not the case. According to, Orgondonor.gov, statistics show that right now, 114,869 people are in need of an organ. 18 of them die each day from it. He also says euthanasia is a cycle. In actually, 1 donor saves 8 lives, so it's not "one dies, one lives". If we give the incentive that people who use euthanasia must also donate, thousands of lives would be saved.
CON, mentioned adding 80 would be nothing. Sure, it may seem that way. Yet, the cost of those 80 indivuals can reach millions. Which we taxpayers must pay for even though, cure is far away. That money can be used to treat patients with actual cureable diseases. This leads to my next argument.
Health care costs can be reduced, which would save estates and lower insurance premiums.It's no secret that premiums on health care have took a major jump in costs over the last decade. Some workers around the country are going on strike simply to protest the increase in health care costs. We regularly debate how to provide cheaper prescription drugs, care for the uninsured, and fight the skyrocketing costs. Anything we can do to reduce that burden helps. Consider the huge cost of keeping a dying patient alive for several months. You must pay for x-rays, lab tests, drugs, hospital overhead, medical staff salaries, etc. It is not unheard of for medical costs to equal $50,000-100,000 to keep some patients alive. We have to ask ourselves, is this the best way to spend our money when the patient himself would like to die? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the patients that can be saved? You also have to consider the drag on a dying patient's estate. Most people want to be able to leave their children and grandchildren with something when they die. Medical costs eat into that estate. It's totally unreasonable to pour this kind of money into patients that just want to end their suffering. As Medicare, Medicare, and other government programs accelerate the United States towards bankruptcy, anything that causes a decrease in total costs must be a consideration.
Patients can die with dignity rather than have the illness reduce them to a shell of their former selves.Dying patients sometimes lose all ability to take care of themselves. Vomit, drool, urine, feces, and other indignities must be attended to by nursing assistants. Alzheimer's patients suffer from progressively worse dementia that causes memory loss and incoherent rambling. Virtually all people want others' last memory of them to be how they once were, not what they ended up being. For example, Ronald Reagan died of Alzheimer's. He and his family would like people to remember the brave man that stared down the Soviets, told Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall", and as the "The Great Communicator", provided historic leadership. Other patients and families have the same wishes for themselves. We should let people die with their dignity, pride, and self-worth intact. What kind of family wants to see a loved one be subjected to these degrading and humiliating conditions. Surely, it IS stressful for a family.
The "Right to die" isn't in the constitution, yet the "Right to suffer" isn't there either. "Give me liberty or give me death" one of the most famous lines in American history, denying someone euthanasia is denying liberty so what comes, death. What is in the in the constitution is, religious fredoom. Denying a person to kill themselves is unconstituional. Prevention of suicide is a violation of religious freedom.A significant part of religious beliefs involves what happens in the afterlife. By preventing suicide, the government is imposing its religious belief that suicide is a sin. No one knows for sure what happens after we die; it should be up to the individual to determine what he or she believes. The government cannot legislate morality.
Sources: Balanced Politics
Thank you. Oh and I was joking about I'd rather see a dead man. It was sarcarsm, guess it's hard to tell from text. :)
My opponents point on curing is more of a red herring then anything else. When something is treated, the symptoms can disappear (like it never even happened, servepro lol). Many medicines relieve the effects of depression, and therapies are useful. The point in this, however, is they are more likely to do suicide and/or want death, and this can be treated by some pill pushing or therapy . Whether or not it can be cured is a red herring. Treatment relieves the symptoms, like allergies, and prevent death. My opponent cites AIDS, this is the part I said would help my point. Euthanasia prevents any further research. Many of these people can be used for interviews etc. By basic screening and blood tests from these patients it helps research in many ways. It helps them identify aids if it can mutate, where it resides, helps them research testing (not prodding with needles, though medications formerly tested on animals so we know you don’t die, if you truly are going to die chemotherapy testing) all of this does a few things. 1) Helps others, 2) if you are truly going to die, some of the dangerous testing may heal you AND help others. Euthanasia just ruins the process. So a good way to make it non-euthanasia is if they want this, they can get it. Though I would prefer their depression is treated first. Killing many potential test subjects’ harms society, and euthanasia could seriously harm the system .
My opponent lumps together corruption. But this too is not relevant to my case. I have shown with no medical definition of “terminal” one cannot really have a set system. This is not corruption, rather shows indecisiveness in the area. And only 300 make sense, as the majority of these patients have not really been granted their request. But with no definition many of these askers could have lived for more then the 6-month time line. Unless you find a societal benefit—which you haven’t—losing even one life then hurts society.
My opponents point again proves my point. I agree that there is a need for organs… But I showed less then 1% of people have a donor approval (donor card? You know what I mean). That’s less then 10/800 of them… its less then one of them… based on those numbers last round only 0.002% of people are donors. Out of 800 that mean less then one person is a donor, 0.016 people. That means, at most, one of them is a donor. This is negligible. With 300 dead from euthanasia, this means 299 lives lost. Assuming some of the diagnoses where right and actually terminal, that is still a net loss. It does the opposite of saving lives.
This is interesting… but wrong. He says 300 less people would lower costs. 250 million people have insurance . Subtracting people will have no benefit. That’s 3/250 (right?) Lets say all of them go to the hospital once a year. Each time it costs one dollar. 250 dollars. 3 off themselves. 247 dollars. That’s a .2% decrease. All Americans have healthcare (ER) meaning that percentage is lower. And less money in the industry raises cost as it means less of an economy and need for competition exists. Either way, there is no conceivable effect from my opponents 300 number.
My opponent now changes course as he has seen he lost the point more towards dignity. Die of dignity or let a disease kill you! Um, suicide, to me, is a sign of weakness. It shows they are scared. Can’t continue. *falls* They merely give up. But as stated many of these illnesses can be treated so well. Many of them cure. My opponent will likely talk about some cancers and AIDS, though that is a small sample size. Many of the illnesses, as proven earlier, are not even terminal. In all reality, suicide is a sign of weakness, and not a virtue. All of those who have done suicide are in my prayers, though I really think its not dignified. And if my research argument is true, that means they might be the ones to find the cure ;)
The quote my opponent cites was in relation to taxes, economic freedoms. The founding fathers supported many social controls . Therefore it cannot apply.
My opponent keeps saying that it’s unconstitutional. Again. I have shown many court cases proving there is no right to die or euthanasia, suicide, and the right to life is the only one to exist. And my opponent agrees it is not in the constitution, this concedes the argument. For a liberty to exist, it must be defined. For example states rights. It cannot he changed by interpretations or societies whims or outside sources that do not govern the constitution (like my opponents quote). So for a liberty to exist he must prove it is clearly stated in the constitution or that it can be linked to other rights logically .
My opponent dropped my depression analysis and they are legally forced to be left alone to euthanasia would be illegal most of the time based on that.
My opponent talks about morality. Nowhere in this debate have I said it is immoral, I think. This is a red herring in attempt to get emotions. It is rhetoric.
OPPONENT PLEASE READ THIS
ok. got your attention. I am aware you can post very fast, however I please ask you wait for two days before you post your next round. Just delay it, after 48 hours post whenever you want. That is all I ask. Just delay. (needed to clarify from the PM).
If there is no delay, I will be forced to FF the next round. Although argunments would still be up to the voters, I would lose conduct and an FF is no fun. So... Please delay? thanks.
Throughout this entire debate my highlighted that depression cause you to be irrational and contemplate suicide, yet the medical community beg to differ says there are benefits to suicide. Charles Darwin, along Einstein and Edison, is one the the most influential scientist of all time. He concluded depression has a secret purpose and our medical interventions are making a bad situation even worse. Like a fever that helps the immune system fight off infection increased body temperature sends white blood cells into overdrive depression might be an unpleasant yet adaptive response to affliction. Maybe Darwin was right. This would a person more attentive and less likely to look at euthanasia for a solution. Researchers have discovered that depression is as common as the common cold. If depression really made people think irrational then we would have a much higher suicide epidemic. Depression makes a person think and rule out euthanasia as an option. Instead of going to extremes people with depression would talk to their doctor and not give euthanasia a thought as a solution. They would take anti depressants, meaning we can't include them in the pool of suicide since people with depression think more rational than the average person. 
I did more research and turns out my opponent missed important details. There was in fact, like he said, 6000 donors last year, those are donors who are still alive not people who are willing to donate after they die. According to organdonor.gov, "Currently, more than 100 million people in the U.S. are signed up to be a donor sign up and join them". That is more than 33% or 1/3 Americans. Just as an example, let's look at the 300 number from Oregon my opponent argued agaisnt me. Since, 1/3 Americans are organ donors that leaves 100 people organ donors from Oregon. Since 1 donor saves 8 lives, that is 800 lives saved from only 100 people who chose euthanasia. This in fact does benefit society. That 300 number is only from Oregon, think about people from other states who need organs. If a person does chose to with euthanasia, those people would save lives and leave a legacy with them, instead of being statistics who died from terminal illnesses.
My opponent is being very one dimensional and not hollistic by only using the 300 number. Think about the people from other states. We are facing the worst economic collapse since The Great Depression. This puts many people at risk of losing their health insurance. This leaves ill patient with huge medical bills that put more stress on them. Some who don't have insurance use government programs such as, Medicare and Medicaid. Who pays for this? Us the taxpayers. Why would I want my tax dollars going into people who will eventually die with suffering, when that money could be going to savable patients that would contribute to society. Of all 50 states many people are not only making their families go bankrupt, they're also pushing the US into bankruptcy. All wasteful spending must be reduced, denying euthanasia is a wasteful cost.
My opponent says that suicide is a sign of weakness. Forcing someone to suffer is better. So, I guess someone taking pain killers is also a sign of weakness. I think not. There is no medication that can make all pain go away. Sure, medication can take away physical pain. That leaves many patients still suffering from psychological and emotional distress. Knowing that there is a possibility you could die, possibly soon, puts tremdous anxiety on the already ill, which can make the disease they are fighting much worse. CON, also says that Cancer and AIDS is only a small sample size. Tjis is terribly illogical since 12 million Americans suffer from Cancer, that's 4% of American. Also, It is estimated that more than one million people are living with HIV in the USA and that more than half a million have died after developing AIDS. That does not seem like a small sample size when it reaches millions. Of course, these aren't the only terminal illnesses. I would like to know where the cure is. This "research" has not led to much progess
In the end, it is just a person choice to commit suicide. A person's life belongs only to them, and no other person has the right to force their own ideals that life must be lived. Rather, only the individual involved can make such decision, and whatever decision they make should be respected.
Freedom, is fundemental in America. It is the right we all are guaranteed. Suicide is the most basic right of all. If freedom is self-ownership ownership over one's own life and body then the right to end that life is the most basic of all. If others can force you to live, you do not own yourself and belong to them.
My opponent didn't deny whether or not banning euthanasia is agaisnt freedom of religion. As long as no one else is hurt we should follow our own fate. What if someone's religion says suicide is mandatory. Sure, many religions condemn suicide(Christiantiy, Islam, Judaism). Though many religions condone suicide(Confucianism, Shintoism, Jainism). 
By saying researching on sick patients my opponent is implying that a person with a terminal illness should be forced to be tested on. That seems to deny more rights and more freedom.
Overall, unfortunately if people want to kill themselves they will do it. In anyway, no matter how horrific. The government can't stop them. The only thing euthanasia is, a calm, safe, painless, compassionate way to end someone's life with digninity and freedom.
This was a really fun debate. Very stimulating. Finally, I would just like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and discussing in an orderly fashion. Good luck to my opponent and the voters. Thank you. :)
Thanks for waiting :D
My opponent’s claim is they will take medicines then choose euthanasia. Though as stated virtually all euthanasia patients are depressed, and once they are healed they choose life. Meaning unless we mandate depression testing before they choose suicide, the problem would never be fixed as doctors rarely point out that they are depressed. And these mandates are contradictory to your arguments, as it would increase the amount of time doctors are with the patients. And, much of the time, it would be a violation of rights to enter their realm. So, really, this solution won’t work.
And, anyway, many of these medications are ineffective meaning we think they are rational when they still are not, making your solution more frivolous .
My opponent has claimed that there is 100 million signed up to be a donor. However many of them don’t pass the necessary tests so the actual donor count, based on that source, is 14,000 . And, anyway, I have already showed these donors would eventually die so there would still be a continual chain of donors, and, therefore, having no effect on the amount of donors. Furthermore, I showed even if you agree with my opponents (they die faster meaning more donors) you would only add 80 to the stockpile. And many of them would not pass the tests. In reality, euthanasia would save no lives and have a net negative.
And my opponent in his 100 million statistics also misses the point. Many of them choose later not to be a donor, and using living and dead so we get the 14,000 number. SO basically the 6,000 numbers is a better estimate. And that 100,000,000 counts people since the technology existed.
His argument is a play on emotions. A fallacy. I showed 300 people would have no overall effect, and this is a fact, and my opponent never refuted it. He merely states we are in bad economic times. Though this does not refute anything. It merely concedes no effect, meaning there is no cost benefit demonstrated by my opponent. Merely play on emotions.
Again, this point is weak as all diseases can be treated leaving minimal or non-existent pain. As the NRLC notes, “Proponents of euthanasia argue that "mercy-killing" is necessary because patients, particularly those with terminal illness, experience uncontrollable pain. They argue that the only way to alleviate the pain is to eliminate the patient. But is there a better way? … The better response to patients in pain is not to kill them, but to make sure that the medicine and technology currently available to control pain is used more widely and completely. According to a 1992 manual produced by the Washing ton Medical Association, Pain Management and Care of the Terminal Patient, "adequate interventions exist to control pain in 90 to 99% of patients."
Meaning his point on pain is, again, a play on emotions. There is no such thing as “mercy” killing, and this point is a moot. The quote above was previously given, I think, and I did indeed show there is no pain to control and, therefore, the point does not work in my opponents favor.
And yes, many Americans get cancer. The point? See the quote above. This doesn’t work in your favor.
My opponent in summary only says this: it’s a personal choice. This is not enough to prove it is a right as I have shown a right to life exists. Basically its like this:
1. A right to life exists (my opponent agrees)
2. No legal document shows a right to death exists (my opponent dropped this)
3. Euthanasia does not fulfill any right to life and violates the right to life
The second part of my argument is:
1. Most people on euthanasia are depressed (agreed upon)
2. If you are depressed, legally, you cannot be given anything except depression treatment “Those seeking suicide would be legally entitled to be left alone [if they where depressed]”
3. There is no right to euthanasia, they should be left alone
This mean arguing it’s a choice is irrelevant unless he shows this choice is a right, not a mere privilege or choice.
My opponent then talks about religions, though this has nothing to do with rights. Many religions support murder, though murder isn’t a right. This argument is irrelevant.
Basically we get PROs appeal to emotions, and misrepresenting his own evidence . And many mere assertions that do nothing to prove or disprove anything in the debate. When you get right down to it, PRO has failed to refute any of my arguments or prove his one point (rights). A CON vote would be logical.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
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.