The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
lannan13
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 3 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,849 times Debate No: 62068
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Danielle

Pro

On our last attempt at debating this subject, I had to leave for a vacation where I didn't have access to WiFi. I was forced to forfeit and thus "lost" the debate. I'd be interested in a rematch. I'll use the same arguments i presented for the last debate in the opening round. Con is free to copy and paste his previous arguments as well, or present an entirley new case. Good luck.

==========================================================================

First and foremost, one's life belongs to one's own person. People must be free to live (and die) as they please. To suggest otherwise essentially qualifies one as a slave whose life ought to be dictated by other people. The only exception to this supposition regards a human being whose life is not self-realized. This includes fetuses before a certain state of development, living persons in a vegetative state and people so terminally ill that they will assuredly die. Those people's lives can be ended through non-voluntary euthanasia in good conscience, as their 'personhood' status would be challenged given certain criteria of personhood (they lack consciousness) and are therefore no longer eligible for the legal right to life.


Voluntary euthanasia gives people the option of dying with dignity on their own terms. It allows them to die peacefully and eases their pain and suffering. Exercising the right to personal autonomy is an inherent component of liberty. The state or interpersonal interference of voluntary euthanasia inhibits freedom. It might also qualify as unnecessary torture. If we logically "put down" animals to ease their pain and soften transition to death, why exclude human beings from the same consideration? It is selfish to dictate how another person lives or dies if they are not harming anyone but themselves by choice.

Not allowing people in tremendous pain to opt out is cruel. It presumes that an outsider understands what the patient is feeling and undermines their desires out of selfish and culturally biased values. The patient is entitled to their own values and choices which might be different from other people's. Again, if they are not overtly harming another person, then they have the moral right to end their life or ease their pain on their own terms. Their life belongs to them and them alone. This is why involuntary euthanasia is morally abhorent, but voluntary euthanasia is just. In cases where people could not put an immediate end to their long, drawn out, insuffrable agony (most people do NOT die quickly and painlessly in their sleep) then many choose to kill themselves through other means such as starvation or refusal of treatment. If people want to die they will find a way to die. It's morally sound to make their death as painless as possible.

Non-voluntary euthanasia ought to be reserved only for those who are terminally ill and at the very end of their expected life. It would be pointless to argue that a very rare miracle with 0.0000001% chance of probability ought to dictate our legal parameters. Those who have power-of-attorney rights over someone should be able to "pull the plug" at their discretion. Objections to this include fear mongering, such as the ridiculous myth that allowing euthanasia will suddenly make the world murder-hungry and death crazed -- a complete exaggeration with no substantiated proof whatsoever.

In countries that have legalized euthanasia such as the Netherlands, euthanasia itself remains a criminal act unless carried out by a qualified doctor with the consent of a legal and ethics expert. This means that mercy killing does not have to be and should not be a frivolous endeavor to be taken lightly. Instead standards would be imposed to ensure the patient is either fully conscious and voluntarily ending their life, or investigating the circumstances surrounding a power-of-attorney or next of kin to make that decision in the case of non-voluntary euthanasia. In other words the process would not target the vulnerable (the old, disabled and wary) and pressure them to end their lives, or leave their lives in the hands of a stranger or one with ulterior motives. It should simply an option in particular circumstances that warrant it.

Many people who choose or plan on choosing euthanasia insist that the optional choice enhances the quality of their own lives. They know to make each day count and feel totally in control of how the rest of their life will proceed. This is an invaluable emotional and spiritual gift that almost rivals the gift of physical health. After all, most of us probably hope to die peacefully and painlessly one day since death is inevitable for us all.


Finally, I can't ignore the financial and economic analysis surrounding assisted suicide. While you cannot put a price on life, the cost of end-of-life care is objectively not worth the money when you factor inevitability and the state of the prolonged life. It could cost tens of thousands of dollars to keep someone alive for even just a few days while they are not even aware they are alive. Considering many of these people don't want to be alive (and will waste money living in agony instead of making better use of that money for the living whose lives are valued and actually improved by that money), then you have to consider who really benefits from forced survival - especially if the cost is being passed on to others.

There's no legitimately good reason to mandate that another person live against their will, especially if they are suffering. Fear mongering won't work when scrutinizing statistics. For example in 2005, a study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient’s explicit permission. This among other facts would immediately rule out the notion that permissible euthanasia would compel a death frenzy. This process is typically reserved for those who want to die with dignity - not those with a presumed incentive to kill others.

A Dutch report found that in 86 percent of cases, euthanasia shortened life by a maximum of a week and usually only a few hours. In other words, it was a last resort - an escape used by patients in unbearable agony who would rather that agony be ended now than in two days time. We have no reason to believe that the option would be abused. Even if it were a possibility, the fact that almost every single aspect of our lives is subjected to possible corruption, abuse or misuse would likely significantly undermine those arguments in comparison to the reality of forced life which is essentially torture for many terminally ill euthanasia recipients.

Facilitating death with dignity doesn't mean that a patient would be excluded from the best care or have other options ignored or dismissed preemptively. It simply ensures one's life is not valued by longevity but quality.

[ References ]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
lannan13

Con

I accept and I also will use the same R2 argument.

Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent.

My opponent has forgotten to give you some terrifying numbers when it comes to euthanasia and these numbers are also from Pro's first source's website (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanised and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who recieve euthanasia are done without consent. ( Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.003.) A study in Beliguim reported that 32% were without consent.



Consent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasias have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belguim, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion.

Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument

Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, “If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia.” However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. (Medical end-of-life practices under the euthanasia law in Belgium.
Bilsen J, Cohen J, Chambaere K, Pousset G, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Mortier F, Deliens L
N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 10; 361(11):1119-21.) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not concider the child at liberty to make the call. (The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures.
Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L
Health Policy. 2009 May; 90(2-3):181-7)

The euthanasias in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasias have doubled since 2007 as well.


The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our prespective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition.

""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?"

From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain."

From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases."

From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" (http://www.all.org...)

You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are suppose to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. (http://www.all.org...)

Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

Many thanks to lannan13 for accepting this debate (again). I will begin by responding to my opponent's three contentions.


Re:
Contention 1 - Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent.

Con reports that ~900 euthanasia deaths occur per year without the consent of the one being euthanized, and half of the ones that are done go unreported. This is to be expected. I've explicitly stated that I am against euthanizing those who do not wish to be euthanized; however, I also pointed out that often the ones who ARE euthanized are not in a position to consent, because they are already extremely sick and beyond the point of regaining cognitive function. Con's very own source notes, "The reasons for not discussing the decision to end the person's life and not obtaining consent were that the patients were comatose (70% of cases) or had dementia (21% of cases) [1]. That accounts for over 90% of "non-consent" cases.

While many people do not have the opportunity to provide written consent agreeing to euthanasia, that does not mean they wouldn't choose that option and haven't expressed that sentiment to a loved one. In many emergency cases, a spouse or parent has to make life-or-death decisions for a loved one for whom they have power of attorney rights or another partnership, whether or not the one in critical condition had the chance to give explicit instructions. That is common in the medical field. It's also illegal to perform this procedure on kids in certain countries, assuming they have never expressed a desire (or aren't cognizant enough to do so) in how to proceed in life/death situations.

As for reporting acts of euthanasia, Con presents a study done in the Netherlands. If I did a study on behavior in South Africa, it doesn't necessarily mean the same social standards would apply in the United States. In this country doctors are subject to intense scrutiny, especially by insurance companies, and there are greater bureaucratic and balance of power checks to ensure little foul play. Either way, if the argument is that euthanasia will be done and go unreported, who is to say that doctors aren't already doing it and not reporting it here specifically because it's illegal? This isn't a good argument against legalization because it doesn't allow for criminalization to be a sufficient deterrent. Furthermore what do unreported acts have to do with the inherent morality of the act itself?

Re: Contention 2 - The Slippery Slope Argument

It's interesting that Con presents the "slippery slope" as an argument in his favor, when it is actually one of the most popular logical fallacies. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to some significant effect, such as being given a small push over the edge of a slope and sliding all the way to the bottom. In this case, Con is arguing that legalizing euthanasia would be the small push that leads to an effect of mass murder. He is essentially saying that if we give people the opportunity to die with dignity, that their loved ones and doctors all over the country are going to start going on a killing spree and ending everyone's life prematurely. Con never provides an explanation for why medical professionals and spouses everywhere will start pulling the plug left and right on innocent patients and family members.

Obviously something will become more popular when it is more readily available and there is more information.

Con notes that in the past, only certain types of euthanasia were accepted but the law expanded to include more provisions. Clearly society's opinions change over time, and the law reflects a shift in social perspective. I clarified in the opening discussion of the initial debate that I support voluntary and most non-voluntary euthanasia. I do NOT agree with the social perspective that supports involuntary euthanasia (killing against one's will) or passive euthanasia, where a treatment or cure is withheld from the patient unless they agree to that voluntarily. I will not be arguing in favor of that standard. Con bringing up that some other people support this standard is completely irrelevant.

Re: Contention 3 - Giving The Healing Doctor A Killing Role

Con claims that old people will be afraid of doctors because they will fear for their lives. This is a moot point. In the case that an elderly patient did not want to be euthanized, they would state that explicitly and no euthanizing would occur under my proposed legal standards (since I am against non-voluntary euthanasia). Additionally my opponent suggests that a doctor is simply incapable or unwilling to both protect and end life. First, that choice could and should easily be left up to the individual doctor. If one didn't want to euthanize, they don't have to much like doctors who choose not to perform abortions don't have to. Second, veterinarians are doctors who "put down" animals all the time. Preserving and ending life is part of their daily job. Many doctors are capable of this standard and think it is the best, most fair, decent and dignified way to care for a patient. Apparently 95% of U.S. physicians have no objection to taking someone off life support, and 82% have no objection to terminal sedation [2].

Another fun fact is that 3/4 Americans also support legalized euthanasia (though some might change their mind if you describe it as "assistied suicide" because people are emotional), and 86% support it for the terminally ill or those of whom are on life support [3].

[[ Pro's Arguments That Were Dropped By Con ]]

1. One's life belongs to one's own person. People must be free to live (and die) as they please. Exercising the right to personal autonomy is an inherent component of liberty. The state or interpersonal interference of voluntary euthanasia inhibits freedom. Inhibiting this option is selfish.

2. Not allowing someone to die with dignity might qualify as unnecessary torture. Most people make this choice as a last resort to end insufferable pain and agony. Con is suggesting people be forced to endure excruciating conditions during the last days/hours of their life.

3. If we "put down" animals to ease their pain and soften transition to death, why exclude human beings from the same consideration?

4. Those who have power-of-attorney rights over someone should be able to "pull the plug" at their discretion. If these people can make life-or-death decisions for their partner/child/parent in the case of an unexpected emergency, why not in cases where the prognosis is guaranteed (probably painful) death?

5. We could/would impose strict standards overseeing the process to eliminate foul play. Apparently giving someone the option to pull the plug on a sick family member would guarantee that everyone stops feeling empathy, sadness and love toward their family, and starts feeling nothing but the intent to kill unnecessarily and wrongly... so Con suggests. I argued for standards to the process such as at the very least allowing for voluntary euthanasia, and ways to investigate situations of involuntary euthanasia. I am pro safeguards against any chance of someone actually trying to cause intentional harm to another. Con claims there will be a slippery slope toward a free-for-all of death, but doesn't explain how or why.

6. Many people who choose or plan on choosing euthanasia insist that the optional choice enhances the quality of their own lives. There is also evidence that this option increases the quality of end-of-life care. The dying know to make each day count and feel totally in control of how the rest of their life will proceed. This is an invaluable emotional and spiritual gift that almost rivals the gift of physical health. After all, most of us probably hope to die peacefully and painlessly.

7. While you cannot put a price on life, the cost of end-of-life care is objectively not worth the money when you factor inevitability and the state of the prolonged life. It could cost tens of thousands of dollars to keep someone alive for even just a few days while they are not even aware they are alive and/or may be suffering. What's the point?

8. A Dutch report found that in 86 percent of cases, euthanasia shortened life by a maximum of a week and usually only a few hours. In other words, it was a last resort - an escape used by patients in unbearable agony who would rather that agony be ended now than in two days time. We have no reason to believe that the option would be abused. Con also challenges the stat I presented but I'll tackle statistics, studies and data more in the next round if necessary.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://euthanasia.procon.org...
[3] http://www.statisticbrain.com...



lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent.

Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually woke up to be on the O’Rielily Show. (http://www.rense.com...) They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. (http://www.nysrighttolife.org...)

For this next part I will argue that of self determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide weather or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgemental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. (http://www.vatican.va...)

My opponent brings up that the Netherlands case is irrelevant, but the study is still a study. Though they may not have the same culture or morals they are more like US than Africans. (not trying to be racist, but it’s a simple fact) If my opponent still does not choose to accept my Neatherlands graph then I shall present one from Oregon and it shows the exact same trend
My opponent brings up that since we euthanize animals then why don't we euthanize humans. The answer to this question is simple when looking at this from a moral standpoint. She is also right to say that you cannot put a price on a life. When religion is applied God gave humans dominion over the Earth and all animals upon it. Thus it is justifiable for humans to kill animals. When it comes to humans it is immoral to play God and kill a human being and determine the day which he meets his/her maker. Hence why one of the 10 Commandments is "Thou shall not kill" and we all know that euthanasia is a "mercy" killing. We also do tons of crazy things to animals that we do not do to ourselves like testing new pesticides on and desease treatments/testings. Also when you see the new technology coming out everyday to wake people from comas it really makes it irrelivant and irresponsable to kill someone like Terri Schiavo where you only had to wait a while and then she woke up after the doctor had pulled the plug.
Contention 2: Slippery Slope Argument
My opponent misinterprets my argument by saying that all doctors are to go on a killing spree and that we will have a society like in the Giver where we euthanize all of the senior citizens, because they cannot contribute to society anymore. No this is incorrect. I'm simply showing how legalizing this will lead to more as society gets to accept it as a norm. Like how the process of "Unwinding" is gloabally accepted though we would view it as apalling! (Unwind by Neil Shusterman). It's social acceptable, because society has accepted it as a norm and has been used to it for so long. Just like in Belgium now, people are able to euthanize children, which I had brought up last round. You can see how this is becoming socially acceptable as the numbers and the rates of euthanasias are increasing and in some cases doubling. The cases of Euthanasia in both Belgium and Neatherlands have doubled and skyrocketed since they had been able to legalize it and this is proof of this becoming a norm.
There is plenty of information on euthanasia avaliable as several European nations have been doing this for years.
Now once again, I understand that Pro is against involuntary euthanasia, but the fact is that I have show that by supporting this will lead to the fact of it getting legalized as it has led to the ability for children to be euthanized by the word of their parents in Belgium in 2009.
Contention 3: Giving the healing doctor a killing role.
My opponent states that my fear of the doctor is irreliant, but pounder this; why are children afraid of clowns? Many actually point to two prominate and well known clowns, Pennywise from It by Stephen King and Bozo the Clown. Bozo the clown who turned out to be a prominate serial killer and Pennywise is a self explanitory one, but these two caused a major fear of clowns and the same can be done to demonize doctors. (http://zidbits.com...) My opponent likes to give statistics here so I'l use her very source to give you some of these facts.
Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]:
  • 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide
  • 31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide
  • 21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide
  • 5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicide

Physician Characteristics:

  • 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide
  • Physicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South

So it appears from Pro's own source that the numbers appear to show that the numbers are actually saying the opposite of what she is trying to say. (http://euthanasia.procon.org...)

Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

My opponent has essentially forfeited this debate.

Despite the fact that I singled out and repeated 8 specific arguments that my opponent dropped, he chose to completely ignore them and not address any of my PRO arguments in the last round. Every single one of those arguments must therefore be awarded in my favor as they are presumed to be dropped concessions. As it is the final round, it is too late for Con to reply as I will not have the opportunity to respond to his rebuttal. I have responded to all of Con's points, but he chose to drop every single one of my affirmative arguments despite me being the instigator of this debate.


For the audience's convenience, I will summarize those 8 points although they can be referenced more in depth under a gigantic heading in my last round argument as well as Round 1. All of these must be kept in consideration of my favor.

1. Americans have the right to bodily autonomy; it's the epitome of freedom
2. Forcing one to endure an unnecessarily prolonged, painful death could be considered torture
3. We "put down" animals out of love to end their suffering - why not extend the same consideration to humans?
4. Loved ones have power of attorney rights to make medical and other decisions on behalf of the incompetent
5. We could/would put high standards and safe guards in place to avoid any foul play
6. Research shows this option enhances the quality of life for the patient's last days and their end-of-life care
7. It is exorbitantly expensive to spend so much money keeping someone alive when they will be unaware and/or in pain
8. A Dutch report found that in 86 percent of cases, euthanasia shortened life by a maximum of a week and usually only a few hours


Assuming I have to negate Con's arguments to win this debate, I will.



Re: Contention 1 - Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia Without Consent


Con says that even if someone is in a persistent vegetative state, their loved ones and/or doctors cannot make the decision of euthanasia on their behalf. He writes "The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide weather or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind." This seems to indicate that my opponents does in fact support euthanasia - he supports voluntary euthanasia. I'm glad for that but I'm pretty sure he is supposed to be arguing against euthanasia all-together...

I am 100% against involuntary euthanasia.

In defense of non-voluntary euthanasia, Con has ignored the majority of my rebuttal from the last round. I will repeat myself verbatim:

"While many people do not have the opportunity to provide written consent agreeing to euthanasia, that does not mean they wouldn't choose that option and haven't expressed that sentiment to a loved one. In many emergency cases, a spouse or parent has to make life-or-death decisions for a loved one for whom they have power of attorney rights or another partnership, whether or not the one in critical condition had the chance to give explicit instructions. That is common in the medical field. Either way, if the argument is that euthanasia will be done and go unreported, who is to say that doctors aren't already doing it and not reporting it here specifically because it's illegal? This isn't a good argument against legalization because it doesn't allow for criminalization to be a sufficient deterrent. Furthermore what do unreported acts have to do with the inherent morality of the act itself?"

Con's argument boils down to the fact that he's not okay with anyone but the individual choosing euthanasia. First, Con already concedes to the benefit of euthanasia at this point (voluntary) and second, this translates to Con being worried that a doctor or loved one will choose this option against the patient's will. As you can see, I am not really misinterpreting his argument at all. He is suggesting that euthanasia against one's will (murder) is the likely result of legalization. Ergo, he is using the ridiculous slippery slope logical fallacy to suggest that family members and doctors will suddenly have the urge to kill unnecessarily and immorally. I have repeatedly asked why a next of kin, power of attorney or medical professional would choose to end someone's life unnecessarily. Con never answered and simply said that isn't what he is suggesting, which he clearly is as you can see from his own words.

Like I said in Round 1, the likelihood of someone recovering from a vegetative state is exceptionally small. Another fallacy used by Con here is the appeal to emotion and selective representation of information. It is a completely false, bold faced lie to say that Terri Schiavo RECOVERED from her vegetative state! The faulty statistics and arguments used by my opponent do not reflect reality. First, "waking up" from a vegetative state is NOT the same as regaining cognitive function and ability. Even those who "wake up" and open their eyes hardly ever regain the capacity to speak, think and feel to even the most basic level of human development.

There is highly questionable video footage of Terri Schiavo making noises before her death. That does not mean "recovery." Consider the video footage where she allegedly opens her eyes on command. After she opens her eyes, you can hear the speaker advising Schiavo to close her eyes, but the footage abruptly ends. Isn't that strange? Instead of proving Schiavo could respond to commands by opening and closing her eyes, they don't show Schiavo closing her eyes on command directly thereafter because she could likely NOT understand the speaker or respond accordingly. If you hold a video camera on someone and say "open your eyes" eventually they will, but they were unable to prove cognitive function in Schiavo's case which is ultimately why the euthanasia occurred. Again, Con is suggesting that Schiavo's husband just wanted to kill her I guess...


Contention 2: Slippery Slope Argument

Con says that I have "misinterpreted" his argument, however, I have not. I will use his own words to show that I have not misrepresented the crux of his point. He writes, "I'
m simply showing how legalizing this will lead to more as society gets to accept it as a norm... It's social acceptable, because society has accepted it as a norm and has been used to it for so long... The cases of Euthanasia in both Belgium and Netherlands have doubled and skyrocketed since they had been able to legalize it and this is proof of this becoming a norm." Ergo, he is arguing that legalization would lead to normalization and increased used of euthanasia.

I have already agreed that this is accurate. I specifically explained that when there is more information and access to a procedure people think is beneficial, that more people will pursue it as a potential option. I do not think euthanasia is morally unsound, so I do not see more widespread application as a negative. I mentioned that I am advocating for more euthanasia (increased access to those who want it). I pointed out that only involuntary euthanasia (against one's will) is bad.

Con wrote in R1 that the rate of involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia jumped to a whopping 1.8% in Belgium. Aside from that being an extremely low percentage to begin with, that figure includes involuntary euthanasia which once again I am not supporting in this debate. Con has to prove that INVOLUNTARY euthanasia (which I consider murder - killing someone against their will) would occur more, not just non-voluntary euthanasia which means the patient did not have the opportunity to specifically consent.

Contention 3: Giving The Healing Doctor A Killing Role

None of what I said in the last round was misrepresented from my source. I pointed out that 95% of U.S. physicians have no objection to taking someone off life support, and 82% have no objection to terminal sedation. Con never denies that my source makes these specific claims because they absolutely do.

The rest of the stats cited by Con are irrelevant. I've already explained that doctors who do not wish to perform any procedure against their will should absolutely not and not have to, so what is the point in highlighting which racial demographics and religions support physician assisted suicide? If an Asian doesn't want to perform the procedure, she shouldn't. If a white woman doesn't, she shouldn't either. I've explicitly pointed out that more people reject euthanasia when it's called "suicide." That explains why most doctors are allegedly against physician assisted suicide, but 95% support taking someone off life support as per the very own source myself and Con sourced... meaning the term suicide makes people feel icky, but the process doesn't. Extend my argument that many doctors feel this is the best course of action for aforementioned reasons.

lannan13

Con

8 arguments


1. My opponent claims that this argument went unanswered, but this is incorrect as I debated that I argeed that we have this, but we must be in the right state of mind in order to make such a decission and I argued that, in my last round, people tend to choose life over death when in the correct state of mind.


2. We have pain killers and I brought up the New York doctor who invented a new pill to deal with these kind of these things.


3. I also answered this in my last round, we as humans concder ourselves to be above animals and we treat animals completely different than we do ourselves as we do several types of testings on animals that many dub unhumane.


4. I understand that they have the right, but as I stated before that this right should be left to the person who will die. When that person is in the correct state of mind then they may choose a decission, but as I said last round, when in the correct state of mind the average human will choose life over death.


5. Now I agree that such safe guards are needed, but this will not do anything as my slippery slope argument proves that it will become a social norm and we will go to other methods and we could end up like Belgium where they euthanize children.


6. My opponent claims that this will enhance quality of life for the patient, but this will kill them. How does this enhance their life? I demand to see the evidence on this.


7. I know that it is highly exspensive to keep these people alive, but even as my opponent said. You cannot put a price on a person's life and that the person's life outweighs the monetary cost.


8. This argument was once again refuted in my last round that even if it shortens life by a few days you cannot play God and give someone their death date.


Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent


My opponent is twisting my words when she quoted my state of mind quote, but the fact is that once the person is in a correct state of mind then the person will choose life over debth as I showed last round.


I acknowledged that you are against this, but the slippery slope argument shows that this will happen reguardless of weather or not you support it. Thus showing by supporting the legalization of this part will lead to the forced euthanasias.


My opponent claims that I ignored her argument, but this is also incorrect as I did refute this argument last round with my argument of the person's correct state of mind argument. She also says that doctors are doing it and not reporting it, because this is illegal, but mind you that these reports are from nation's that where it is legal. This means that the ones that go unreported are those against the person's will and those that the nations of Belgium and the Dutch have decided are to be illegal.


Here in my first video shows Terri Schiavo right before her death. Her eyes are open and moving and she is responding to the doctors questions with a moan. (https://www.youtube.com...) The video clearly shows her recovery as she is attempting to get better, but they pulled the plug on her. My opponent also completely ignores my argument of the New York doctor that has a pill that leads to a 91% recovery rate and this is key in this debate, because you can easily escape a coma through this pill, but people repetitively go to euthanasias in this cituation.


Contention 2: Slippery Slope Arugment.


Yes, I am arguing the the normalization of euthanasia will lead to an increase of their usuage. What my opponent does not realize is that the normalization will lead to the legalization of involuntary euthanasia as it has lead to the ability to euthanize your children in Belgium. As I reitterate that there is plenty of information on euthanasia as it has been legal in both Belium and the Neatherlands and even Oregon where it has been legal for quite some time and it's normalization has already been able to take affect on the population as laws are changing to fit the norms. Though the increase in Belgium is only 1.8% it is still a large jump. I would like to point out that my opponent has dropped all of my other eidence showing the great amounts of euthanasias increasing by a multitude of 2 and sometimes even more than that.


Contention 3: Gving the healing Doctor a killing role.


My opponent is incorrect as I have shown that Pro's own source that's the majority has some sort of objection to euthanasia. Where she get's the 95% at from her source I have no idea, but the very first two charts is where I get mine and it contradicts what Pro claims.



Pro's drops.


In this debate my opponent drops several key things.


1. People, in the correct state of mind, will chose life over death.


2. My evidence from other nation's legalizing euthanasia.


3. Legalizing Euthanasia will lead to involuntary euthanasia.


4. Legalizing Euthanasia has led to the ability to euthanize children in Belguim.


5. Giving the doctor a killing role will lead to the fear of doctors.


6. The morality of killing an indiviual.


7. My refuting of her 8 'killer' arguments.


8. Humans outweigh animals.



With these things dropped the resolution is thus negated.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
@GreyP Why is the Terry Schiavo controversy unrelated to euthanasia argument?
Posted by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
I had a question for PRO and CON. The statistics cited by Con at the end of round 2. Are they right or wrong. Pro and Con, both cant be right? Can you two confirm if the stats are correct or not?
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
good to see a rematch happening. it was much needed.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Sorry it took so long to get around to it, I've just been very busy with homework and such.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Daniellelannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con dropped many crucial argument that ultimately caused him to lose the debate
Vote Placed by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
Daniellelannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both con and pro provided strong arguments. But con was a little disorganized. Pro brought her case forward by point by point so I am leaning towards Pro. Great debate!
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 2 years ago
Greyparrot
Daniellelannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not really refute legitimacy of voluntary euthanasia. Con's Appeal to Terri (in a misleading way) could have been a conduct dock, but I let it slide.