The Instigator
jamccartney
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Guidestone
Con (against)
Winning
10 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 2 votes the winner is...
Guidestone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,391 times Debate No: 55034
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

jamccartney

Pro

Introduction

This debate is about euthanasia, the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. I will be on the pro side, meaning I support it. My opponent will be on the con side, meaning s/he does not support it.

Rules:

1. Proper spelling and grammar must be utilized at all times
2. All sources, if any, must be properly cited.

Format:

Round 1: Acceptance only
Round 2: Arguments. No rebuttals.
Round 3: Rebuttals and any last arguments
Round 4: Final rebuttals and conclusion

I look forward to this debate. Please do not accept if you are not going to take it seriously or if you cannot commit to the debate. Thank you.
Guidestone

Con

I accept this interesting challenge, and I hope through this debate we each can gain insight into the other point of view.
Debate Round No. 1
jamccartney

Pro

Introduction

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. I will begin my arguments.

Arguments

Morality

First, I would like to talk about morality. Most people do not like the idea of euthanasia because they say it is immoral. However, I have some problems with that statement: Morality is not objective, so it is not immoral. Morality is very subjective and relative. One cannot successfully use the morality argument.
Second, I will talk about my moral standpoint on this: Letting someone suffer is worse then killing them. I would most certainly have a painless death than a painful one, and I am sure my opponent will agree with me on this.

Upsides

1. Provides a way to relieve immense pain. If someone is in enough pain and was, without a doubt, going to die, there is no reason not to put them out of their misery. If I had been severely burned, for example, and were in terrible, irreversible pain, I would not want to live my life in pain. My opponent wouldn't either.
2. Provides relief of pain. Again, pain and suffering is horrible and can, if there is no better way, be relieved.
3. Freedom of choice is a beautiful thing. Allow me to share a quote with you:

"There is nothing more important to a human than freedom. There is also nothing more perverted by a government than a human's freedom. It pains me to see humans not reaching their full potential by reason of this perversion." - Jacob McCartney

Why should the government be able to take away the freedom to live or die. This right is already abridged with the death penalty, but it can be perverted the other way as well.

4. "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."

Someone who is suffering should have the right to be able to end their suffering if they desire to.


Euthanasia on account of an irreversible coma

If someone is in an irreversible coma, there is simply no reason to keep them alive, hence the word 'irreversible'. It would be a waste of money and resources. Why would we waste these resources on people we cannot save? We shouldn't. There is no point to it.

Conclusion

I believe I have thoroughly giving reasons towards why euthanasia should be legal. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.


Works Cited

1. http://www.euthanasia.com...
2. http://euthanasia.procon.org...
Guidestone

Con

Arguments For Legal Euthanasia

1.
euthanasia is “inevitable, so it's better to have it out in the open so that it can be properly regulated and carried out.

Murder is also inevitable, so should we have that out in the open and regulate it? The obvious answer is no, and which is why inevitability is never a good argument to propose for anything.

2. Euthanasia may provide a cost-effective way of dealing with dying people. Where health resources are scarce, not considering euthanasia might deprive society of the resources needed to help people with curable illnesses.

This is repulsive to think we are going to be judging people if they are worth the resources to give them possibly life saving procedures, and there is already evidence of such actions going on in places where the practices are legal. One notable case is Barbara Wagner in Oregon in which an insurance company refused to pay for a drug to help her with her lung cancer, but the company was willing to pay for the drugs for physician assisted suicide [1].

3. It is cruel and inhumane to refuse someone the right to die, when they are suffering intolerable and unstoppable pain, or distress.

It ignore advancements in medical technology to relieve pain, but euthanaisa are not pain relieving or improves quality of life. Pain relief technology has come a long way “A century ago, high blood pressure, pneumonia, appendicitis, and diabetes likely meant death, often accompanied by excruciating pain. Women had shorter life expectancies than men since many died in childbirth” [2]. Now we have methods like using morphine, which is over 80% effective for everyone at relieve pain; also, we have opiates, which have been effective for chronic pain [3]. Further, euthanasia doesn’t actually relieve pain. To explain, sedation just makes you unresponsive to the pain, but once you wake up the pain would still be there because nothing was done to target the pain. Euthanasia is like sedation in the way that it just makes you unresponsive to pain, and nothing was done to target the pain itself. Medicine should be focused on killing the pain not the patient. To say euthanasia relives pain would be equivalent to saying that euthanasia stops cancer from spreading. In a way they are both sort of right, but no doctor would ever recommend euthanasia to fight cancer, so why they do so for pain?

4. Human beings have the right to decide when and how to die.

it is becoming less of a choice and more coercion; further, in countries where VE is legal the quality Palliative care, end of life care, is becoming harder to obtain which is actually limiting choices rather than expand it like proponents claim. For example in the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal there are problems.

Although the Dutch government has attempted to stimulate palliative care at six major medical centres throughout the Netherlands, established more than 100 hospices and provide for training professionals caring for terminally ill patients, many physicians choose the easier option of euthanasia rather than train in palliative care [4].

Further, according to Herbert Hendin, MD, “Data from patient interviews, surveys of families of patients receiving end-of-life care in Oregon, surveys of physicians' experience and data from the few cases where information has been made available suggest the inadequacy of end-of-life care in Oregon” [5].


Arguments Against Legal Euthanasia

1. It is opposed by all major religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Islam, and Buddhism.

They all believe that human life is a gift from God, and no human being should get rid of such a gift” [6]. Critics will be the first to point out that we have a separation of church and state, and they are partially right. In the United States we still print “In God we trust” on our money and have “under God” in the pledge; however, this may give people a personal reason to oppose it, but may not be enough to enforce laws against it. There are also secular reasons to oppose Euthanasia.

2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia, than learn techniques for caring for the dying which undermines the quality of medicine available

The American Medical Association, along with many other health organizations filed a brief with the Supreme Court during the Washington v. Glucksberg case, stating “properly trained health care professionals can effectively meet their patients’ needs for compassionate end-of-life care without acceding to requests for suicide” [7]. Dr. Hendin also shown “Studies show that the less physicians know about palliative care, the more they favor assisted suicide or euthanasia; the more they know, the less they favor it”, and “Euthanasia, intended originally for the exceptional case, became an accepted way of dealing with serious or terminal illness in the Netherlands. In the process, palliative care became one of the casualties, while hospice care has lagged behind that of other countries”

3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient and people cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted.

. When it comes to normative ethics, there are two schools of thought utilitarianism, and Kantianism. Utilitarianism is “to act in the manner that determines the most positive consequences and the less negative ones” [8]. “The motive behind this pragmatic approach lies in the finding of a disproportionate growing trend of health expenses in the last month of the terminal patients’ life” [8]. This model of ethics makes it ethical to use euthanasia because it saves medical resources, and unethical to keep living and using those medical resources. This re-enforces the idea that legal Euthanasia actually limits choices and coerces people. Since, in this theory, the focus of moral evaluations is based on the consequences of the action towards others, it is impossible to know if you are doing a moral action. If because a patient chooses euthanasia to save medical resources, and now they are able to save a future mass murder from dying then they would have done an immoral action. This makes this theory a poor way to figure out if euthanasia is actually immoral or not. Further, in this moral theory there is no human rights since any action like murder could be moral if the majority benefited, so this isn’t a moral theory that people would want to follow. The other theory of Kantianism which gives a clearer answer. Kant believed we derive morality from rationality in which he proposed an unwavering moral law called the categorical imperitive [9]. Kant said to determine if an action is moral or not you would have to make that action a universal law that everyone must follow, and if that action caused any contradictions then it is an immoral action. “Kant would not agree with anybody who out of self-love decides to take his/her life. This is because this is a system that aims at destroying life; hence this maxim could not possibly exist as a universal law” [9]. This moral theory better explains if euthanasia is immoral or not, and better matches what the average person would believe, since in this theory we have human rights.

4. that it is un-ethical for doctors to give such procedures; such practices violate the Hippocratic Oath, and Voluntary euthanasia gives power which can be too easily abused

The Hippocratic Oath was made to define the doctor’s proper role and medical ethics. Hippocrates states “the doctor to do whatever is for the benefit of the patient, and to give no deadly medicine if asked, nor suggest such counsel” [10]. To have legal euthanasia would violate centuries of well established and respected medical ethics. These medical ethics have been carried on by modern medical associations like General Medical Council, and British Medical Association [10]. Without this rule, doctors can abuse their role as a trusted professional. For example, “The government-sanctioned studies suggest an erosion of medical standards in the care of terminally ill patients in the Netherlands when … more than 50% of Dutch doctors feel free to suggest euthanasia to their patients, and 25% admit to ending patients' lives without their consent” [5]. Frankly, it is disturbing that any ending patients’ lives without consent is even accepted little alone so wide spread. Also, if doctors suggest euthanasia, they are essentially giving up at their position as trying to help/cure the patient.

Sources
[1] http://abcnews.go.com...
[2] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] http://www.life.org.nz...
[5] http://www.psychiatrictimes.com...
[6] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...
[7] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...
[8] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...
[9] http://www.academia.edu...
[10] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...

Debate Round No. 2
jamccartney

Pro

Introduction

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding. I will now lay out my rebuttals to what he said.

Rebuttals

I have a few problems with my opponent's arguments. Throughout, he seems to be giving arguments to both sides. His arguments are comprised of two parts: Reasons for euthanasia and reasons against euthanasia. This confused me for a moment. I will simply refute his arguments against legal euthanasia.

1. It is opposed by all major religions, inclusing Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Islam, and Buddhism

This is true, yes. However, as my opponent mentioned, there is a separation of church and state. He then goes on to argue that this separation is limited, for "we still print “In God we trust” on our money and have “under God” in the pledge." He fails to recognize, however, that it is actually unconstitutional to have these things on money and in the pledge. This can be proved my looking at Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, which says this:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen."

For there is a clear separation of church and state, the fact that religions oppose euthanasia is irrelevant.

2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia, than learn techniques for caring for the dying which undermines the quality of medicine available

In this point, my opponent seems to be making an argument for eutnanasia. My opponent gave no arguments against it.


3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient and people cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted.

Morality is subjective. This is a fact and it cannot be denied. Ethics are not facts, but merely opinions that cannot be proven. Throughout his explaination, my opponent has given subjective arguments, not objective arguments. In my arguments, I gave arguments that are relevant and objective.


4. that it is un-ethical for doctors to give such procedures; such practices violate the Hippocratic Oath, and Voluntary euthanasia gives power which can be too easily abused

The Hippocratic Oath does not appertain to this. If there is nothing a doctor can do to save a suffering patient, the only thing that doctor can do is euthanasia. Why would a good doctor let a patient suffer? A good doctor wouldn't. Instead, s/he would do what is possible. If nothing is possible, euthanasia is the only way to relieve a suffering patient.



Conclusion

I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments correctly and justly. I have shown aspects that my opponent cannot deny. I patiently await his rebuttals

Works Cited

[1]http://www.stephenjaygould.org...
[2]http://www.iep.utm.edu...;
Guidestone

Con

I thank my opponent for his interesting response; however, they did make a few errors. I also will deny aspect that my opponent shown, and revealing them as incorrect.

Firstly, the reason there is a for section was because it was a pre-rebuttal similar to what my opponent did about morality in the first round. It seems my opponent failed to realize it even though it was clearly against legal euthanasia.

1. It is opposed by all major religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Islam, and Buddhism

My opponent fails to realize that things such as Under God in the pledge isn't unconstitutional, this was discussed in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow where many justices agreed on constitutionality [1]. Also, Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District, New Hampshire, Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District, Massachusetts all have given similar rulings [2]. Further, it is still not irrelevant like I said in the previous round "this may give people a personal reason to oppose it, but may not be enough to enforce laws against it.", so by restating most of what I said and including a false fact does not help my opponent's case.

2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia, than learn techniques for caring for the dying which undermines the quality of medicine available

My opponent claims this is an argument for euthanasia, but this is simply not true. The argument against it is in bold above here. If my opponent failed to read the argument then I will restate it here. Because of legal euthanasia doctors will take the easier route and give deadly drugs rather than harder live saving medicine.

3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient and people cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted.

My opponent claims morality is subjective, but no serious person holds this view. There are certain things we all see as wrong including murder, and rape. We also believe in human rights which are universal morals such as it is wrong to force someone into slavery. Further, if moral subjectivity is true then my opponent can't claim it is morally acceptable because that would be creating a absolute moral. Also, my opponent seems to contradict them self by saying "One cannot successfully use the morality argument." then the next sentence says "...I will talk about my moral standpoint on this..." which would be completely irrelevant if morality is subjective. If my opponent want to remain consistent then they can not use anyone's moral stand point including their own and must also deny certain things are objectively evil such as the holocaust, and slavery.

4. that it is un-ethical for doctors to give such procedures; such practices violate the Hippocratic Oath, and Voluntary euthanasia gives power which can be too easily abused

The Hippocratic oath is completely relevant to this. Further, it is the job of the doctor to cure not do harm. Also, my opponent implicitly concedes this point because in his rebuttal they are not disputing that euthanasia could be abused and used on patients without consent, but rather they are arguing that if they did so because they were suffering that it would be a positive thing.

5. Uncertainty of death and the subjectivity of requirements

Who can qualify for euthanasia? If it is the terminally ill what is defined as terminally ill? In Oregon

The law states that, in order to participate, a patient must be: 1) 18 years of age or older, 2) a resident of Oregon, 3) capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself, and 4) diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six (6) months. It is up to the attending physician to determine whether these criteria have been met [3].

This law does not mention any pain or suffering to qualify for PAS. Also, it is subjective on if an illness is terminal in six months or not, as the law says “it is up to the attending physician to determine”. Plus, it doesn’t mean that they will not recover or live past that six months. “federal officials note that about 10% of patients live longer than the anticipated six-month life expectancy” [5]. The most famous case of getting it wrong is Stephen Hawking. In 1963, in which Hawking was 21 at the time, he contracted motor neurone disease and was given two years to live [4]. Stephen Hawking is still living at the age of 72 years old. Further, why was six months chosen over four or eight? There is actually no medical reason why six months was chosen as the limit. In the Netherlands citizens qualify for euthanasia if they are at least 12 years old and their suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement. This law is also subjective; it mentions nothing about terminal illness, just unbearable suffering. Suffering like physical pain is subjective, what might be painful for one might not be for another. Also, there is no test to see an objective level of pain, but it is not limited to physical pain, emotional pain is also included. There has been a case in the Netherlands were a woman was able to get euthanasia and was considered to be suffering unbearably by two doctors, and her illness was going blind [6]. This amount so subjectivity should worry anyone about euthanasia.

6. Fear & Hopelessness

Euthanasia based on fear and hopelessness; Patients are vulnerable and fearful about the potential pain and deterioration ahead. When patients are told they only have a certain time to live, a lot of them feel hopeless/depressed; also, chronic mental illness, a fear of loss of dignity, social isolation, feelings of incompetence all play a part in the demoralization of patients [7]. These are all preventable/treatable things in which would prevent VE/PAS.

7. Targets the Vulnerable


Euthanasia will target the most vulnerable in our society including the elderly, and disabled; The ‘right to die’ can become a duty to die. Old people can be made to feel a burden on their families. The supreme court realizes this would be a problem in their ruling in the other major euthanasia case Vacco v. Quill, in a 9-0 ruling they stated in the ruling, if there is a constitutional right to euthanasia, “shielding the disabled and terminally ill from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives” [8]. Medical doctors agree with this like Rhoda Olkin, PhD, who wrote “In a society in which people with disabilities are one of the most disadvantaged minority groups, we do not have the luxury of thinking of PAS as a final act of self-determination. We are a vulnerable population, subject to forced sterilization, ostracizing, stigma, and discrimination” [9]. Even today people with disabilities go through bullying everyday. Dr. Olkin continues “to argue that people with disabilities have as much free will as the non disabled is to ignore the oppression of people with disabilities” [9]. As Jacob Appel shows the euthanasia controversy can be traced back to the controversy about eugenics, which is the belief that people can be genetically superior and should be preferred over those who have genetic problems [10]. “Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in 27 states” [11]. These are very similar to the ideas of Adolf Hitler which most condemn as the most evil person in history because of these ideas. People with disabilities are not the only one targeted by these laws, the elderly are too. As Felicia Cohn, PhD, wrote “Given the high and seemingly disproportionate costs of health care for the elderly and those in the final phase of life, these 'users of excessive medical resources' may be the targets of cost-saving efforts” [12]. As shown earlier one of the main arguments for legal euthanasia is saving medical resources, and shown one prominent case of someone who was affected by cost-saving measures.



Sources
[1] http://www.oyez.org...
[2] http://www.becketfund.org...
[3] http://public.health.oregon.gov...
[4] http://www.hawking.org.uk...
[5] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...
[6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[7] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...
[8] http://www.oyez.org...
[9] http://euthanasia.procon.org...
[10] http://muse.jhu.edu...
[11] http://www.sfgate.com...
[12] http://euthanasia.procon.org...



Debate Round No. 3
jamccartney

Pro

Introduction

I would like to thank my opponent for responding and giving me his rebuttals. He has made many gramatical errors, such as his first two sentences. Slight gramatical errors do not bother me, but these errors were large enough to bother me.

Rebuttals

My opponent has given me seven points with explainations. I will refute each one.

1. It is opposed by all major religions

This is a secular nation. This is a fact that my opponent cannot deny. Because this is a secular nation, the United States of America cannot make laws regarding religion. They just cannot.

2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia

Yes, it is easier. My opponent denies this, yet it is true. It is much easier to administer euthanasia, yet it is only a last resort. Doctors do everything they can, but if they simply cannot end the suffering of the patient, why keep him or her alive? Most people would not want them to suffer.

3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient

"My opponent claims morality is subjective, but no serious person holds this view. There are certain things we all see as wrong including murder, and rape. We also believe in human rights which are universal morals such as it is wrong to force someone into slavery."
I want to stop for a moment and talk about morality. It drives me crazy when people cannot understand this. - Even though you think it is wrong to kill, does not make it true - I happen to be a sociopath, which means I do not have the same moral opinions as my opponent. My opponent thinks it is wrong to kill. I think it is wrong to kill. There are, however, people out there who do not think it is wrong to kill. There is no rulebook out there saying what it immoral and what is moral. Morals exist solely in the amygdala. This is a proven scientific fact. It's not dogma. It's not my opinion. It's a proven fact.

4. It is un-ethical for doctors to give such procedures; such practices violate the Hippocratic Oath

My opponent is simply not understanding this. If the patient is suffering and cannot be cured, why not be able to put them out of their misory? I cannot imphasize this enough. My opponent is either not understanding or is refusing to admit that he understands.

5. Uncertainty of death and the subjectivity of requirements

"Who can qualify for euthanasia?"
How about the people who are in irreversible and unstoppable pain? If I were in neverending pain and could not be healed, I would not want to live the rest of my life in such pain. I think my opponent can agree with me on this.

6. Fear and Hopelessness

This point is not pertinent. It creates a paradox. If a patient is subject to endless suffering, they should be allowed the right to end it. But, preparing to end the suffering creates problems, so we should not do it.

7. Targets the Vulnerable

'Right to die' does not become 'Duty to die'. Ever. Since when is ending the pain and suffering of a patient a duty? It seems my opponent has forgot my definition. I will restate it.

The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.

How does this sound like the patient's duty? It's not.


Conclusion

My opponent's arguments are not sufficient enough. Throughout this debate, it seems my opponent has not been arguing against the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. He has been arguing against a person being able to kill themself legally and through lethal injection. My arguments have shown his mistake and they have shown that euthanasia should indeed be legal.
I patiently await my opponent's rebuttals.
Guidestone

Con

I thank my opponent for their responses; however, I think he missed a few points.

Firstly, yes I made some grammatical errors, but so did my opponent. The difference was the errors I made were missing words which is hard for someone to catch this type of error since they know what is meant. My opponent on the other hand misspelled words such as grammatical, explanations, misery, and emphasize even though they could have used the spell check option. I think before my opponent points out my errors that they should really look at theirs first.

1. It is opposed by all major religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Islam, and Buddhism

My opponent has still never addressed what I actually brought up in multiple rounds. This is a debate about support of euthanasia, and if your religious then this would be very convincing reason to oppose it. As I have repeatedly said "this may give people a personal reason to oppose it, but may not be enough to enforce laws against it."

2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia , than learn techniques for caring for the dying which undermines the quality of medicine available

My opponent claims I deny that euthanasia is easier, but this isn't true since I made this argument first round of arguments. Further, my opponent also never address the base claim here which was euthanasia undermines the quality of medicine available.

3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient and people cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted.

It is important to note here even though some people don't see this objective morality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just like how some people are color blind but that doesn't mean color isn't objective. Also, if there is no rulebook my opponent can not say euthanasia is morally permissible because that would be an absolute moral then. Further, a lack of absolute morals would undermine our justice system. For example, is someone raped another they couldn't be told they did something wrong because morality is subjective and for him rape isn't wrong.

4. that it is un-ethical for doctors to give such procedures; such practices violate the Hippocratic Oath, and Voluntary euthanasia gives power which can be too easily abused

If we are talking about refusing to admit things then I should point out the argument here was doctors abusing the power of euthanasia. Further, if they wants to bring up pain I would refer them back to my opening argument of "It ignore advancements in medical technology to relieve pain, but euthanasia are not pain relieving or improves quality of life. Pain relief technology has come a long way “A century ago, high blood pressure, pneumonia, appendicitis, and diabetes likely meant death, often accompanied by excruciating pain. Women had shorter life expectancies than men since many died in childbirth”. Now we have methods like using morphine, which is over 80% effective for everyone at relieve pain; also, we have opiates, which have been effective for chronic pain. Further, euthanasia doesn’t actually relieve pain. To explain, sedation just makes you unresponsive to the pain, but once you wake up the pain would still be there because nothing was done to target the pain. Euthanasia is like sedation in the way that it just makes you unresponsive to pain, and nothing was done to target the pain itself. Medicine should be focused on killing the pain not the patient. To say euthanasia relives pain would be equivalent to saying that euthanasia stops cancer from spreading. In a way they are both sort of right, but no doctor would ever recommend euthanasia to fight cancer, so why they do so for pain? "

5. Uncertainty of death and the subjectivity of requirements

Reading my opponents responses makes me wonder if they read my arguments at all. They mention suffering, but I would refer them back to my previous argument "In the Netherlands citizens qualify for euthanasia if they are at least 12 years old and their suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement. This law is also subjective; it mentions nothing about terminal illness, just unbearable suffering. Suffering like physical pain is subjective, what might be painful for one might not be for another. Also, there is no test to see an objective level of pain, but it is not limited to physical pain, emotional pain is also included. There has been a case in the Netherlands were a woman was able to get euthanasia and was considered to be suffering unbearably by two doctors, and her illness was going blind. This amount so subjectivity should worry anyone about euthanasia."

6. Fear & Hopelessness

My opponent does not address the main claim here which was euthanasia is based on fear and hopelessness. This is shown here in my opponents argument with the phrase "endless suffering" which sounds very hopeless. However, I have shown that pain is not endless, and that euthanasia doesn't actually relieve pain at all.

7. Targets the Vulnerable

It is important to not that my opponent didn't address any of the evidence that shows that euthanasia targets the vulnerable. My opponent asked "Since when is ending the pain and suffering of a patient a duty?", but I answered that in the previous round. I would recommend my opponent goes back and actually reads the arguments presented. Further, my opponents definition of "The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma." implies neither of duty or a right. My argument was that the legalization of such a process would target the vulnerable. Even though this definition is not true since there are many complications that arise with euthanasia [1].

Conclusion

My opponent failed to address the main point in most of the claims, and often appeared to not have read the arguments presented. It is also important to remember according to the first round this was a debate about supporting or opposing euthanasia which is different than saying it should be legal because you could still oppose something that is legal. Also, my opponent never addressed any of the pre-refutations of I presented in my opening arguments.


Sources
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...




Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by E_Pluribus_Unum 2 years ago
E_Pluribus_Unum
Pro defined euthanasia as "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma". With a definition like that, I start to doubt someone this debate would accept in a timely manner. It seems skewed to favor pro in regards to what sort of patient and when euthanasia is used. Just say it is act of intentionally ending a human life to relieve pain or suffering.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
This is a very controversial topic. In fact, I am undecided on this issue. I support Euthanasia in most cases, but there are a few where I believe there are other alternatives, keeping that person alive of course. I will be supporting jamccartney in this debate, but I am still not 100% for Euthanasia.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
jamccartneyGuidestoneTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters showed great conduct and both have great writing skills. However, Con had the more convincing arguments, for they were much, much longer, more sophisticated, and effectively refuted Pro's arguments. Pro could have easily won this debate with more effective rebuttals and longer arguments. Pro does not deserve the convincing arguments points. His arguments were short and basic. I happen to know Pro personally, and he has a tendency to not take his time, write short arguments, and not effectively refute something, while his opponent's are extremely long. However, he, unlike Con, did not take his time and actually write something complex. Con obviously wins the sources points. When reading this debate, you can see that Con used many more sources than Pro and implemented them into his arguments more effectively than Pro. Pro could have won this debate - and I still agree with him 100% - but Con simply had the more complex, more resilient, more credible arguments than Pro.
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
jamccartneyGuidestoneTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I am always happy to see people engaging intelligently and politely into debates. I think both parties showed good conduct and writing skills above average. Still, Con showed a better ability to deal with rebuttals. He handled his arguments clearer and with more confidence. All sources used are web-sources (what a pity) but Con showed a better ability to source his facts on a medium reliability and not only his ideas, that's why I think source points are required. Pro did tell us, where the ideas came from, but for a debate, we want to see on what facts these ideas are built and how reliable these facts are.