The Instigator
schachdame
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
socratits
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Euthanasia

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...
schachdame
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 813 times Debate No: 54985
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

schachdame

Pro

Euthanasia, actively or passively helping someone to die, is certainly a big issue that this site is pretty much ignoring; but it's certainly important. We're going to debate about any sort of euthanasia and having to right to do it and/or to ask for it.

Interesting things to talk about: Child-Euthanasia like in Belgium, Euthanasia-Tourism...

I don't mind if you have strong religious feelings about this but I would ask you to provide more than only this as an argument, as it certainly does not apply to and won't convince those who don't share your religion.

I propose the following round-system, because I think it's fair and leads to nice and closed debate

Round One: Acceptance (obviously) and an probably opening statement*
Round Two: Arguments
Round Three: Reaction and further argumentation
Round Four: A conclusion that does not introduce new statements so everyone has the chance to react to the other's statements.

*Openning Statement - one to five sentences so I have a small impression of your opinion and that you are really going to debate me on this (I am not sure if I can take another full-forfeit ;D)

Sources: I might ask for a source if something seems not legitimate to me or if I have no idea what you are talking about or where you got that idea. I am handling it the same way and provide you with sources where I think it's necessary to strengthen my point or to give you additional information that I don't want to fully paraphrase.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opening Statement from my Pro-Side

There are many reasons why people might choose to commit suicide and some of them are, that their physical condition is not bareable for them any more. Especially in those cases people are often already unable to end their life themself and ask for help. I argue that those how help someone end their life (as long as there is proove that this happend with consent of all involved parties) are neither murderers nor should be treathed like that. One should be able to escape long suffering if one wished to.
socratits

Con

Hi Schachdame,

I gladly accept your debate on euthanasia. Please note that I took this debate because I wanted to argue for the "con" side even though my beliefs on euthanasia are "pro" under most circumstances. That being said, I apologize if I can't give you a strong rebuttal on every account, but I will try my best.

"Opening Statement from my Pro-Side

There are many reasons why people might choose to commit suicide and some of them are, that their physical condition is not bareable for them any more. Especially in those cases people are often already unable to end their life themself and ask for help. I argue that those how help someone end their life (as long as there is proove that this happend with consent of all involved parties) are neither murderers nor should be treathed like that. One should be able to escape long suffering if one wished to."

Your statement has the BOP to demonstrate that the parties involved in this situation are not murders. My responsibility is to show that euthanasia is a form of killing. If you wish, you can define murder in this situation. If you do not provide a definition, I will take the definition off of Merriam Webster for this argument.

Thanks and Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1
schachdame

Pro

Hello socratits. Thanks for joining me in this. I think it shows a lot of courage and creative thinking to argue a Con-Side to something oneself is not absolutely Con to. I am going to start tough but after reading what I've written I know at least one point were you can really cause me trouble and I will spent the next hours thinking about how to argue if you find a certain weakness in the following...
I am also terribly sorry if I occasionaly forget a word or put it in twice - it's a thing of mine and it's really embarrassing.

I am starting to clarify the core points of my position for the Con-Side, which is not only, that Euthanasia is not killing, but also that these people should not be treated like murderers and that it's important to allow people to engage in or use Euthanasia.
This means, even if we can clarify the line between killing, murder and whatever one might call supporting another persons suicide, we still have to interpret that in terms of whether these people should also be treated like murderers legally, because I don't see any point in judging someone a murderer if they are not sentenced like murderers.

In terms of definition I am going to go for the Oxford Dictionaries as that's probably the most common source for definitions and quote
[1] Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
[2] Killing (as a noun): An act of causing death, especially deliberately / killing (verb): Causing death

As Euthanasia certainly leads to death there is no doubt that in some form there is always killing involved. Depending on how the Euthanasia is carried out it's either the patient who is executing the killing (when he takes fatal drugs that someone else provided) or the person helping him (when someone administers the drugs).

But this does not make it murder itself. Using this definition, the act of providing someone with substances in doses that will kill them, cannot be murder at all, because the one executing the killing and the one getting killed are identical. It does not fulfill the definition of a murder at all.

In the case that a doctor, friend or relative is administering the drug, I will focus on the word unlawful. It's going to bring us in a vicious circle because it is murder, if the law states it as such and the law only states this, if the society decides to phrase the law like this. Which directly links to the question, if the society regards this as murder.
So if I prove that people should have the right to kill someone that wishes to be killed, the law conclusively should follow this deduction and that would free said human beings from being murderers as it would not be unlawful any more.
(A/N I sincerely hope that isn't written too twisted to understand)

Therefore my argumentation why people should be allowed to kill someone that wishes to be killed: Personal freedom can be fully granted in cases were no one else (human, animal, nature) is harmed than the person claiming the personal freedom. This is the case for most types of suicide.
For active euthanasia we have one person killing another and one committing suicide; as they know they are getting killed and have given their consent to this. As the killing-part has already been stated as secondary relevant, the central point here is that the suicide-part is therefore legitimate from the point of personal freedom.
Even considering that (from some religion's point) one person might go to hell for committing suicide it's still their own decision and they are free to do it as they don't cause any harm with that.

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
socratits

Con

Hi Schachdame,

Thanks for letting me do this debate with you and for your kind words.

Your Burden of Proof (BOP) is to: 1) demonstrate that killing, as you defined it, is not in any shape or form murder (assuming I interpreted that sentence correct, if not please correct me.)
2) The Power of Attorney (POA)-who does the physical act of euthanizing-should not be considered murderers.
3) Euthanasia has both positive social and personal (or is it just personal?) effects.

Since your argument consists of three BOP, you need to defend all 3 of them successfully to win this debate. For out of the three, if even one fails, I would win the debate due to your overall argument not being reasonably sound.

1) As Euthanasia certainly leads to death there is no doubt that in some form there is always killing involved.
The way you worded this phrase seems like you are conceding to the fact that euthanasia is killing, which goes against the thesis you made the paragraph before, "I am starting to clarify the core points of my position for the Con-Side, which is not only, that Euthanasia is not killing..." It is not the only time you conceded to my point. The whole last paragraph talks about killing and suicide. These concessions alone demonstrates that Pro doesn't even fully acknowledges her own argument.

2) Euthanasia is not murder
Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Killing (as a noun): An act of causing death, especially deliberately / killing (verb): Causing death
Premeditated: Think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand (Oxford)

Premeditation can happen in any instances that needs planning. Euthanasia is premediation of how to carry out one's death. You even agreed with me when you said, "...as they know they are getting killed and have given their consent to this." So Euthanasia is murder when we agree that the act is planned out accordingly and the ultimate result is death.

One thing that I will address later is unlawful, however, I will wait until Pro responds back with her term, unlawful so that we can stay on topic. Please note Pro that law is a whole new cateorgy of debate. For the purpose of this debate, please try to remain as simple as possible.

** I will address the other issules later in the debate when Pro expands on her argument.**

It can be seen that Pro had a weak start with this debate when she starts off contradicting herself. I believe that Pro realizes that her whole problem in this debate lies within the term, "killing." To resolve her defintion of killing would resolve her of some of the problems inherent in her argument, however, I understand what she will do in R2 and I will correct it now. She will continue to try to differentiate between killing and murder. I will explain why there is no different types of killing and that all types of killing are considered murder.

I will be using one of Jame's Rachels article on Kiling and Letting Die taken from the book Ethics by Thiroux (This article is really about active and passive euthanasia and how they are equivalent, but I will only use his example to explain that there are no differences between the types of killing." In Rachel's article, he defines Killing as an active prcoess of withholding treatment. Letting die (passive killing) is witholding treatment so that nature can take it's course. Prima facie, it seems that letting die is more morally sound because of the inaction of actively killing, however there is no difference and this can be seen with parallel cases given below:

"Smith knows that if his little cousin dies, he will receive a large inheritance. One night, Smith sneaks into his cousin’s house while the cousin is bathing and drowns his cousin. Conversely, Smith knows that if his little cousin dies, he will receive a large inheritance. One night, Smith sneaks into his cousin’s house with the intention of drowning his cousin. However, when he opens the bathroom door, he sees his cousin slip into the bathtub and knock himself unconscious. Smith could easily lift his cousin from the bathwater and thus save his life, but instead he just watches his cousin drown." Ethics pg. 86

Most people will say that both of these examples are immoral. If there are only two forms of killing, active and passive, and if we both agree that there are no differences between the two, morally, then we can justify that killing is immoral. Premise as follows:

P1) Murder is premediated killing of one human being by another and is immoral
P2) Killing is an act causing death
P3) Euthanasia is an act of killing
C Euthanasia is murder, which is immoral.

Lastly, I am going to drop the religous argument because thats a whole new topic.
Debate Round No. 2
schachdame

Pro

I am exited about this response; it's really challenging :D

To acknowledge what Con said, I did write that "that Euthanasia is not killing". Unfortunately (and again here was Con right) I handled that poorly and intended to write murder at that point. It does not help that I did not recognized that when I set it on italic. I cannot take it back myself and if Con is not allowing me kindly to do so I will really have no option to get myself out of this, as it is in fact not working with what I argue later.
(A/N That is really going on my note list, it's a really embarassing malapropism.

I agree that I will have to succeed for all my BOP's to win this debate (obviously as they are directly linked and one cannot stand without the other). Meanwhile I approve the given BOP for
{1} killing, as defined, does not equal murder
{2} those who physically conduct the euthanasia are not murderers
(A/N wavy brackets to differ between this and Con's response part as they don't match)

In terms of {3} I have to correct Con. My BOP is not to show Euthanasias positive effects but just is one's right to do it. As from my point of view there is no personal or social benefit required to allow someone a certain decision. One might even choose to do something even if it's to nobodies benefit. The personal part of suicide this is anyway the most personal thing there might come and I don't claim to know anything about someones motives for killing himself.
Quoting myself that it's "important to allow people to engage in or use Euthanasia", I think, that it is important to allow because there are no sufficient reasons to forbidde it.

Therefore
{3} suicide is legitimate (if it does not harm second or third parties)

As Con did protested or provided an alternate definition for killing and murder during his rebuttal, I was assuming that he approves the definitions given.

1) As I would totally have to give in for the fault of mixing up the two words that are central for our debate, I am at least happy to see that that this part of Con's response bases only on that and falls the moment I this sentence is set right.

2) Although Euthanasia is premeditated, according to the definition provided (A/N that was quite a good explanation why it is), this can still not ultimately prove that euthanasia equals murder, as the "unlawful" part of the definition is still an unresolved matter in this case. As Con kindly underlined how important it is for me to succeed in for all three of my central points, I am going to conduct that a very similar concept needs to be applied to fulfilling a definition. Means: a definition is only applicable if it applies fully.
I will come back to the term "unlawful" at the end to expand my argument as requested.

3) going back to my BOP:
{2} those who physically conduct the euthanasia are not murderers. This going to stay unresolved until I have properly demonstrated that {1} killing, as defined, does not equal murder. If this is properly demonstrated, the definition of murder will be established as inapplicable for euthanasia and therefore disprove Con.

Con sharply interpreted that this is therefore going to be all about abut the question if killing and murder are equal. Considering that Con predicted this ("She will continue to try to differentiate between killing and murder. I will explain why there is no different types of killing and that all types of killing are considered murder.") I am deducting that Con agrees to point 3)

4) Let's talk about the given Article. First we are getting into trouble because that's finally the point when Con is offering an alternative definition for murder, when he presents his Premise ("Murder is premediated killing of one human being by another [...]") by excluding the word "unlawful".

I am not willing to drop that part of the definition for two reasons: I think that Oxford Dictionaries did a good job and tried to find a definition that applies to the perception of most western societies (therefore should work for Con's and mine).
Unlawful itself is always defined by the society itself, but usually not up to date. I am arguing that the different "actual laws" for euthanasia are not a different perception of murder but different development and age of the related law. It takes time till new ideas show themselve in the law of a country. The death sentence is good example: It was abolished in most of Europe half a century ago and looking into US death penaltry [3] we can see a clear tendency that this sentence is getting rather unpopular there as well (moving into the same direction).
This means that the actual differences in law are not are not as relevant as the question whether it should be unlawful. This relates to my BOP {3}, that ther is no sufficient reason to outlaw suicide. If suicide cannot be outlawed, helping someone that has already decided on suicide, cannot be outlawed. Therfore the act of Euthanasia is not unlawful.


4-1 I also question the applicability of the given example to Euthanasia. The example shows a situation in which Smith knows that his cousin does not intend to die (as he slips = no premeditation) . He actively forces death onto him by not helping him (passive killing). Passive euthanasia does not work that way. It requires the consent of the patient (that is in a clear contrast to the given example) and offers him to decline euthanasia. A classic example of passive euthanasia would be a doctor who provides a deadly substance for a patient yet allows him the final decision to drink, inject (...) it own his own. Another classic example would be a doctor that offers to end life-sustaining measures or not undertake them, which is something the patient can decline*. This does not apply to the example either as Smith's cousin cannot protest against his cousins decision to let him die.

*this is of course difficult for unconscious patients that have not left a will or consent. Euthanasia, if there is no clear indication that the person has given consent, is highly situational and not generally to resolve.

I could end here, as I have shown that the example is not a suitable one to for euthanasia and therefore the conclusions Con draws from it are not relevant, but I will go further.

4-2 Con states that all types of killing are equal, but this wrong, even according to his own Definition/Premise ("P1) Murder is premediated killing of one human being by another and is immoral"). There are many situations in which the premeditation is not involved in the killing of another human being, mainly for accidents that result in death ("P2) Killing is an act causing death"). A good example is drunk driving; the driver did not intend to kill someone yet he choose to drive drunk (act) and caused death. Human error in terms of software programming causes death in hospitals, space and often is involved in the average "household accident".

We therefore have at least one good example where killing is not equal murder because it fulfills neither on of the definitions provided by Con and me. As Con stated that all types of killing are murder, I regard his point as disproved.

(Personal Note: I never understood why people wish someone good luck for a debate, as it doesn't have anything todo with luck, I thought. Considering my stupid mistake in the last round, I going to rethink the concept of "bad-luck" ;D)

[3] Amnesty International Summary, Statistics p.2 http://www.amnestyusa.org...
socratits

Con

"As Con did protested or provided an alternate definition for killing and murder during his rebuttal, I was assuming that he approves the definitions given."

Yes I do agree with Oxford's defintions, but I am a little confused as to the defintions given is refering to the Oxford defnions or your premise. I agree with the former, not the latter because you gave the premises without support.

Sorry I cant seem to understand your argument in these points:

2) Although Euthanasia is premeditated, according to the definition provided (A/N that was quite a good explanation why it is), this can still not ultimately prove that euthanasia equals murder, as the "unlawful" part of the definition is still an unresolved matter in this case. As Con kindly underlined how important it is for me to succeed in for all three of my central points, I am going to conduct that a very similar concept needs to be applied to fulfilling a definition. Means: a definition is only applicable if it applies fully.
I will come back to the term "unlawful" at the end to expand my argument as requested.

3) going back to my BOP:
{2} those who physically conduct the euthanasia are not murderers. This going to stay unresolved until I have properly demonstrated that {1} killing, as defined, does not equal murder. If this is properly demonstrated, the definition of murder will be established as inapplicable for euthanasia and therefore disprove Con.

Con sharply interpreted that this is therefore going to be all about abut the question if killing and murder are equal. Considering that Con predicted this ("She will continue to try to differentiate between killing and murder. I will explain why there is no different types of killing and that all types of killing are considered murder.") I am deducting that Con agrees to point 3)

I argued that killing is considered murder in the case of euthanasia. You deduced that from my defiintion, that I should then agree with your point 3) which is:

{2} those who physically conduct the euthanasia are not murderers. This going to stay unresolved until I have properly demonstrated that {1} killing, as defined, does not equal murder. If this is properly demonstrated, the definition of murder will be established as inapplicable for euthanasia and therefore disprove Con.

I am confused as to the fact on what you are trying to prove. Rachels's example was to show that killing and murder are the same thing (will come back). Additionally, we agreed on the definitons provided, you agreed with me in 2) that Euthanasia is premeditated, and that the defintion of murder is the "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." I do not see where your argument stands nor do I see how you deduced that I agreed to your point 3). I will drop it for now.

As to your unlawful statement, I did not purposly drop "unlawful" for the argument. My concern was that I didn't know what unlawful was refering to. The problem I saw was addressing "laws" at the different levels. One should agree with me, since you refered to Western countries, that there are different kinds of laws, there are Federal, State, By-laws, and religous laws. When you say unlawful, which one are you refering to? It complicates the debate because there are many laws that contradict each other. A given example in the case of this debate is Federal and State laws. Oregon Washing Vermont and montana are states that allow assisted sucide (http://euthanasia.procon.org...). You argue that "the different "actual laws" for euthanasia are not a different perception of murder but different development and age of the related law." This contradicts your thesis because 46 states consider it illegal, aka unlawful, while 4 states do not. It should be noted that the 4 states listed do not recieve federal funding, for the federal government does not support sucide. The fact that those 4 states are being penalized by not receving federal funding suggests that the differences in laws are a factored that needs to be considered. I want to be clear that the laws are not behind the times as you suggested.

Lastly, you make some good points about my bathtub experience, but unfortuantely, your statements doesnt pertain to my argument. You stated that the passive killing wasn't premeditated and I wanted to clarify this. The slipping was not planned, but the killing was. The slipping of the child can be thought of as dumb luck on smith's part. His intention was to kill, but it jsut so happens that an environmental factor facillated in his killing and he just refused to actively help. Thus, my example still holds.

As to drunk driving and human error, they are irrelevant to this debate, because both examples are deemed to be manslaughter, not murder. We both agreed to use my defintion of killing as: "Killing is an act causing death." In no way shape or form did I say that killing is premediated. Murder is premeditated, not killing. Euthansia and murder are premeditated. The fact that you can prove to us that there are different types of ways to die does not mean that euthanasia or murder are premeditated nor does it poke any holes in my premise when I did not state any premeditation to begin with.

So it is now my duty to demonstrate that euthanasia does harm the individual and the community (because you change your thesis in this current round compared to your starting round, which is fine cause ill address both.) The problem with leagalizng Euthanasia is financial burdens can make a patient chose euthanasia. Specifically, the financial burdens placed on the patient in a way that under many circumstances, a terminally ill patient might think that he should die earlier because death is inevitible and why place uncessary burden on my family?

Secondly, it hurts the community and the public conscience when euthanasia is legalized due to the fear of a type of cost effective treatment for terminally ill patients. Additionally, it goes against the Hypocratic Oath. Doctors save lives, not take them away. Lastly, we should also consider the friends and family of the patient. While it is a patients right to choose what to do with his own body, euthanzing oneself against all others opinions brings pain and suffering to 3rd parties who oppose euthanasia.

One of the simplest rebuttals to my argument is strict law regulation on this practice. The problem is creating effective laws that can properly regulate instances where euthanasia is permissible. It can be a huge financial burden on the already growing cost of healthcare. Moreover, if laws were even enacted, regulations won't deal with people who want to implement euthanasia for bad motives.
Debate Round No. 3
schachdame

Pro

A final hello and first thank-you for your arguments :)

I cannot prove my point without successfully supporting the all three of following points
{1} killing, as defined, does not equal murder
{2} [therefore] those who physically conduct the euthanasia are not murderers
{3} suicide and therefore Euthanasia is legitimate

Con can not properly disprove me if he fails to show art least that
{*} killing, as defined, equals murder

I am sorry that 3) was confusing for you. I was just concluding that {1}/{3} and {2} are linked in a way, that means that the prove of {1} and {3} will automatically be sufficient prove for {2}: If killing is not murder and suicide and euthanasia legitimate actions then those who are involved in an act of euthanasia cannot be murderers.

The second part of 3) was probably the one actually confusing to Con. Rhetorically not very well executed, true, but not wrong. Con earlier stated that "She will continue to try to differentiate between killing and murder. I will explain why there is no different types of killing and that all types of killing are considered murder." This showed that Con acknowledges how central this is for this debate and I assumed therefore that I will get his approval that {1} is used to prove {2}.

Nothing from 3) intends to attack the article; that's what 4) was there for.

In terms of 4) I assumed it would be easier to disprove the article itself first.. You stated bot, that the article was an example that "was to show that killing and murder are the same" as well as it wanted to show that active and passive euthanasia are the same.

I claimed that it is doing neither.

Euthanasia means we have two parties and both agree that one of them will die. And at the end said person is dead.
Rachel's bathtub example on the other hand shows two parties but only one decides that the other one will die. And at the end said person is dead.

James Rachels cannot just take any passive and active act that leads to killing and apply it to active and passive euthanasia if the central part, the consent, is not identical to the concept of Euthanasia. It deliberately parts with the core concept. Therefore it fails to show that active and passive euthanasia are the same.

The main problem with that example is that it shows two random acts of active and passive killing that both are considered murder and assumes that this works for any sort of active and passive killing. It nicely shows what the idea is all about, but is not prove at all. Two similar situation in which killing equals murder aren't sufficient prove that any killing is murder. Or differently: if we we can find at least one or two examples were an act of killing (may it be active or passive) is not concidererd murder, than is the article not able to support Cons point.

Con declined my example given but I am going to show again, why he was to quick doing so:

"As to drunk driving and human error, they are irrelevant to this debate, because both examples are deemed to be manslaughter" That's true: it's manslaughter, from most legal points (what is enough for me here). But it is still killing due to your premise that killing is "an act that causes death". Drunk driving is an excellent example, as we have the act and we have the cause of death. The intention (premeditation) behind the act is just the criteria for Murder, not for killing. Manslaughter, as Murder, is only the interpretation we draw from the pure act of killing. Euthanasia is another one.

This supports my argument that there are very different kinds of killing: There is Manslaughter, Murder, Euthanasia and we are probably able to find more if we look into a random countries law text. I am confident to say that western law text always differs between Manslaughter and Murder yet does acknowledge that both involve an action that caused death.

Murder and Euthanasia (other than Manslaughter) share the intention to end someones life (Con has proven this at least twice and I never declined it), but Manslaughter and Murder share the lack of consent. Rape is a good example how consent can drastically decide whether something is unlawfully or not. Consent decides between rape and perfectly legal sexual intercourse. With the consent of both parties there is no primary reason to state Euthanasia as unlawufl/murder.

Con proceeded that there are other (secondary) reasons to outlaw Euthanasia:

1. Financial burden of being sick will force people into choosing Euthanasia dependently. This purely applies to the American health system. And is therefore dependent itself. Neither is everyone in the western societies part of the american health system nor is this system itself indefeasible. Both, the law concerning Euthanasia and the US health system can be altered and therefore a solution can be found to make them compatible.

2. Euthanasia is an inappropriate way of cutting the costs for terminal ill patients and would encourage doctors to force that on their patients, therefore go against the Hypocratic Oath. First a doctor that truly believes in his Hypocratic Oath would naturally not encourage his patient to take his life. But as doctors are not perfect human beings it is easy to back it up by law that they are not allowed to encourage it.

3. It will lead to an absurd amount of court cases about grey area cases. Mainly when the law is poorly phrased. Can the consent be proven? If no, the cases prospectively fails prior to the first instances. That's not expensive for the community. And there are at least some cases where doctors helped a patient passively to commit suicide and were sued for it. These cases, as they can be regarded as Euthanasia, would not burden the community any more. I am not saying this will reduce a judges work. But it will not significantly raise it either.

4. It's emotionally damaging for relatives and friends if someone is allowed to die. For someone who is terminally ill this means is only robbing his loved ones from months of watching him or her suffering. Someone who knows that he will die and is still physically and mentally fit to spent this time with those he loves will usually not agree to any sort of Euthanasia. If they are immobilized and under pain it's not something pleasant to watch for their relatives as well. And ultimately it's not their decision. The weal and woe of relatives should not be a reason to prevent someone legally from having their will carried out.

All examples apart from 4. mainly apply to the US. The sole reason that Euthanasia is currently not compatible with the American system is not enough reason to deny ones right to it on a general level.

I don't deny that most US states have not legalized any sort of Euthanasia. But as they are some states and some European countries that open the opportunity for it, we can see that compared to Murder, that is outlawed in all western countries, Euthanesia does not fulfill the definition point of "unlawful" with the same sustainability as a classic Murder case.

Summary; I tried to show that there are situations in which killing is not murder {1} and that Euthanasia does not fulfill the definition of murder because it lacks fully established unlawfulness, which makes murder not applicable to Euthanasia {2}. I have also shown that everyone has the personal freedom to engage in a decision, that does not do any harm to other parties {3} and I did my best to explain why Con's claims, that Euthanasia hurts the community, are not relevant enough or not at all relevant.

A/N That was quite a thing; and I am happy to be part of it. I wasn't expecting my opponent to draw a BOP for me from my intro and rather expected an free debate with more different ideas but the outcome was also interesting and especially challenging. This the first proper debate I was able to participate in and I obviously made some faults that mainly show my lack of experience. Nevertheless are the arguments provided relevant and competitive - that counts. Thanks for those reading and writing.
socratits

Con

"I cannot prove my point without successfully supporting the all three of following points
{1} killing, as defined, does not equal murder
{2} [therefore] those who physically conduct the euthanasia are not murderers
{3} suicide and therefore Euthanasia is legitimate"

Overall, the issue lies in how we defined murder. To get to your conclusion of euthanasia is legitimate then we have to assume that murder is immoral. Otherwise, P2 and P3 does not connect. To restate your premise in simpler terms then your premises are saying: 1) killing is not immoral (double negative, sry) 2) the physician performing euthanaisa is not immoral 3) sucide and euthanasia is legitimate (moral). If we accept that all types of killing are moral, then my argument falls and your premise hold. However, I do not think that the readers will agree that all types of killing are moral. Thus, your premises are not sound and did not justify that euthanasia is legitimate. The fact that you did not defend your case suggests that I have the upperhand in this debate. Lastly, going back to what i stated about all killings = murder, I will admit that I made a blunder and forgot to add "in the case of euthanasia" for that sentence. However, even if we go with view that all killings are murder, her statement still does not hold because her premises do not connect without making assumptions to the legality of killing and murder (the premise needs one to assume that killing is legal.)

As for the Rachels argument, Con is basing her arguments off of intentions of both the doc and the patient. We are not focusing on the intentions but on the action itself. The physical performance of drowning, or euthanizing the person. Even with consent from the patient and physician alike, it does not strike down the morality of performing the actual killing. My case still stands.

"As to drunk driving and human error, they are irrelevant to this debate, because both examples are deemed to be manslaughter"That's true: it's manslaughter, from most legal points (what is enough for me here). But it is still killing due to your premise that killing is "an act that causes death". Drunk driving is an excellent example, as we have the act and we have the cause of death. The intention (premeditation) behind the act is just the criteria for Murder, not for killing. Manslaughter, as Murder, is only theinterpretation we draw from the pure act of killing. Euthanasia is another one."

I understand completely, but I was stating that the examples were irrelevlant because you do not give a case as to why euthanasia is not murder. You demonstrated that there are different types of killings but you did not address my argument in R1 where euthanasia is considered murder.

1. Financial burden of being sick will force people into choosing Euthanasia dependently.
This purely applies to the American health system. And is therefore dependent itself. Neither is everyone in the western societies part of the american health system nor is this system itself indefeasible. Both, the law concerning Euthanasia and the US health system can be altered and therefore a solution can be found to make them compatible.


Reforming healthcare is a big task. It is easy to state that we can change laws or completely dissable the healthcare and start from scrtach, but realisitically, suggestting a radical change can't be easily implemented. This is seen with our current Affordable Healthcare Act.

2. Euthanasia is an inappropriate way of cutting the costs for terminal ill patients and would encourage doctors to force that on their patients, therefore go against the Hypocratic Oath. First a doctor that truly believes in his Hypocratic Oath would naturally not encourage his patient to take his life. But as doctors are not perfect human beings it is easy to back it up by law that they are not allowed to encourage it.

These were actually two different arguments, you ended up combining both thinking they were the same lol. One of the fears is that leagalizing euthanasia would be a procedure done by doctors as a form of treatment.

The hippocratic oath is about saving lives, not taking away lives. As in the doctor's duties are to treat the patient with his utmost capabiliy along with providing the necessary pallapative care.

If we combined the two, then your argument suggests that we should establish laws that gives doctors the freedom the choose. This demonstrates that euthanasia affects 3rd parties, a statement that goes against your argument that euthanasia does not affect 3rd party members.

3. It will lead to an absurd amount of court cases about grey area cases. Mainly when the law is poorly phrased. Can the consent be proven? If no, the cases prospectively fails prior to the first instances. That's not expensive for the community. And there are at least some cases where doctors helped a patient passively to commit suicide and were sued for it. These cases, as they can be regarded as Euthanasia, would not burden the community any more. I am not saying this will reduce a judges work. But it will not significantly raise it either.

Consent would be harder to differentiate if the finacial burden argument is a form of consent. Leagal cases are a huge stress on society with it's finacial costs and time. Adding even 1 case to each state/year totals to 50 cases/year. The supreme court sees 80 courts/year.

4. It's emotionally damaging for relatives and friends if someone is allowed to die. For someone who is terminally ill this means is only robbing his loved ones from months of watching him or her suffering. Someone who knows that he will die and is still physically and mentally fit to spent this time with those he loves will usually not agree to any sort of Euthanasia. If they are immobilized and under pain it's not something pleasant to watch for their relatives as well. And ultimately it's not their decision. The weal and woe of relatives should not be a reason to prevent someone legally from having their will carried out.

So you are conceding to the fact that euthanasia does affect 3rd parties. This contradicts your argument that euthansia should be allowed because it does not affect anyone but the person himself, as stated in R1.

You say its soley an American attitude for the last two paragraphs, but only 20 out of the 196 countries leagalized euthanasia. That doesn't seem to suggest that it's soley an american attitude. http://en.wikipedia.org...


Summary

My only purpose in this debate was to refute the 3 assertions that Pro made. For me to win, I only need to show 1 of them is at fault for her premise to be wrong. The most prominent one was her argument that euthanasia does not affect 3rd parties of which there were several instances she conceded to my point.

At the end, thank you schachdame (too lazy to write it out :P) for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
Oh no its fine. We're on different timezones anyways.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
Hey, my response is following later this day; I'll have to go and do some Uni - Work as well and I hope I'll be home on time to post my response. Just so you know why it's taking me so much time.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
Well talking about "overdoing" it: for this one I decided to use different fonts because it seemed to help with the definition-reference ( and it looks fancy ;D), but feel free to complain, if you don't like it.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
Ohh ok that makes sense. Thanks for the help!
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
Sure. After I posted my statement you will be (again) able to ; that's were you'll see the Option "Rich Text" on top of your "writing box". It'll allow you to change font, font size and manipulate your text in a classic WYSIWG (What you see is what you get) editor. It's not a bad thing but it usually encourages people to overdo it with formatting (ever seen a eight-year-old's word document?).

The <b>-Tag works exactly like the <strong>-Tag (with an opening tag and a closing tag) but comes from the very classic HTML (HperText Markup Language). Italic would for example go with the <i>-Tag. That's usually enough to use.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
Uhh Sorry, but I'm not computer savvy. Can you elaborate on whichever one is easier? Thanks
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
You either go into "rich text" or use the classic HTML code <b>-Tag
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
Hey how did you bold your sentences? I thought it was </strong> but apparently it's not
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
schachdamesocratitsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Contrary to what either part believed by the end of this debate, the following sentence is the resolution. "We're going to debate about any sort of euthanasia and having to right to do it and/or to ask for it. " for some reason the debate turned to whether Euthanasia is murder. Pro please make your resolution clear and don't roll over for your opponent by allowing them to control what you're arguing. This debate was taken off course by con and he loses conduct points for that. Both of you need make sure you stick to the resolution and keep your future debates on track. I'm not awarding argument points because neither side argued for or against the actual resolution.