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


Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 4/28/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,071 times Debate No: 33016
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Euthanasia, a method of end a person life release them from pain in a humanely way. Should we or shouldn't we allow Euthanasia ?


Euthanasia should be allowed. I look forward to a lively debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Euthanasia, although the purpose is for good, we human ourselves use it for bad. People could use Euthanasia as a tool for murder or excuse. People believe that Euthanasia should also be used on child which is unacceptable. We can not end a person( especially a child) life. We don't have the right to decide people life. I don't agree with Euthanasia.


I will narrow my argument to say that euthanasia for terminally ill adults should be allowed. Now, my opponent made some flawed points. I will now point out the issues.

"Euthanasia... we humans ourselves use it for bad."
I would like to see proof that, as a whole, humanity uses euthanasia for bad purposes. I would say that euthanasia is not, in fact, for bad purposes, but for positive reasons. This will be explained in my arguments

"People could use Euthanasia as a tool for murder or excuse."
It doesn't exactly work like that. In Oregon, a state that allows euthanasia, there are safeguards against this. In order to recieve lethal medication, an individual must: orally request it from the doctor twice with 15 days in between each request, submit a written request that is witnessed by two people, have two physicians must confirm that an individual is within the last six months of his or her life and the treatment, have two physicians must determine whether or not the patient is capable (if either physician believes that the patient is not mentally capable the patient will be transferred to psychiatric care), the patient must be informed of medical alternatives, and the physician must request that the patient notify family (1). While it may seem that people could use euthanasia as a tool for murder or excuse, there are regulations that prevent this from happening.

"People believe that Euthanasia should also be used on child which is unacceptable"
People's opinions are people's opinions. However, with this debate, what is important is the law, as both Pro and Con would need legal assistance to implement. In the context of the law, in America, euthanasia is only allowed for those over the age of 18 (1). Even though one needs only to be 18 years old to qualify, the average age for people who even have terminal diseases is between 70-85. As this number is a mean, the amount of young outliers would be very low (2). Simply put, regardless of the opinions of a small group of people who "believe that Euthanasia should also be used on child," child euthanasia is not, in reality, a significant problem.

"We don't have the right to decide people life."
We don't have the right to decide another person's life. However, we certainly have the right to choose our own death. This is evidenced by a right to life. When a person wants to have control over his or her own life, the person should also have control over the absence of his or her own life.

Now onto my own points.

1. Cost vs. Benefit
Dr. Jonathan Bergman once said, "We end up spending about a third of our overall health care resources in the last year of life (3)." Health care is a scarce resource. A significant amount of that money is government provided. Should the money for care of a terminally ill individual over the age of 70 go to that individual, who has a very short amount of time left alive even if he is cured, or to the ten year old who has a similar condition, and who, if cured, could live many decades more? The money should go for the ten year old, as that child would recieve much more benefit for the cost than the senior citizen would.

2. It Reduces Suffering
Terminally ill individuals are defined, by euthanasia laws, as incurable and in the last six months of their lives. They are in pain. They are suffering. They are placing a huge burden, financially and emotionally, on their families, who are paying for the treatments and seeing their terminally ill loved ones suffer. Should the individual not be able to end his or her own life to reduce the suffering of his or her family and his or herself? The individual should be able to do so.

3. Euthanasia is Painless
This is proven by the definition of the word in the mediLexicon medical dictionary as
a quiet, painless death and the intentional putting to death of a person with an incurable or painful disease intended as an act of mercy (4).

Debate Round No. 2


johnnyvn forfeited this round.


It seems that my opponent has forfeited the last round. This means that, while I have effectively refuted every point Con has made, he has not refuted any that I have made, meaning that he has dropped every one. The points that still stand for Pro are
1. Euthanasia allows for a more effective allocation of medical resources.
2. Euthanasia reduces suffering.
3. Euthanasia is painless.

I would like to remind the voters that Con has no points that can still be considered valid.

Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by leojm 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: He did a beter job