The Instigator
sixth_SENse
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Arcanas
Con (against)
Tied
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 227 times Debate No: 72994
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

sixth_SENse

Pro

One of the main arguments against voluntary euthanasia is a professional issue connected with the taking away of a person"s life by a doctor. As Harper pointed out, "It shouldn't be the job of the doctor, since medical professionals swear an oath to protect life". Indeed, since doctors" or any medical professional"s duty is to maintain or restore human health, they take an oath in order to uphold specific ethical standards. The most famous one is the Hippocratic Oath that is historically taken by physicians. Most people tend to think that the essence of this oath is embraced by the "do no harm" principle. From this point of view, euthanasia is "harm" and, thus, a wicked deed that can be construed as breaking the oath. Nevertheless, on the other hand, this principle is quite constraining: some medical practices (vaccines, for instance) actually imply "doing harm" to a patient toward successful recovery from a disease or preventing him or her from getting one in the first place. This logic is actually embodied in one of the ancient versions of the Hippocratic Oath: ""and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage." Does this contradict the very idea of euthanasia, which is to put people"s sufferings from terminal illnesses to an end? We do not share this opinion. In contrast, we are absolutely sure that easing the pain of these people might even be considered as a duty of medical professionals, since they swear to remove the excruciating pain of their patients.
Another common argument against euthanasia is legal in nature. People are afraid that euthanasia can be used maliciously, as a justification for murder. Lannan13, one of our opponents, paid attention to this aspect, "You legalize Euthanasia, then you give the government the right to kill the sick and elderly." This kind of problem will most likely appear if euthanasia is legalized. Despite the fact that the argument against legalization of euthanasia sounds reasonable, especially in Russia, for instance, we believe that it can and should be legally regulated. Medical practices nowadays provide a solid platform for many lawsuits; thus, hospitals already have whole departments that provide legal service. These lawsuits usually concern medical malpractice and conflicts of interest between the patient and his/her family. In some sense, it could also cover the case of euthanasia. Therefore, thoughtful legal regulations that involve medical evidence of someone having a terminal disease along with the patient"s consent will most likely be enough to deal with the entire legal issue of euthanasia.
In sum, despite the fact that the arguments against euthanasia seem to be reasonable, they do not stand up to criticism. Firstly, such ethical reasons centering on the Hippocratic Oath and doctors" main duty of keeping the patient alive and curing him or her are not tenable, since the goal of medicine is actually the putting away of the patient"s pain. In addition to that, the majority of hospitals nowadays have enough resources to deal with all possible legal arguments which might accompany the euthanasia process. Hence, the argument concerning the lack of development of modern legal regulation does not seem to be well-grounded, either. Nevertheless, the debates around the topic of euthanasia keep flaring every now and then, which actually indicates that the modern society is in need of such an opportunity, since every person would like to pass from this life free of excruciating pain and full of dignity. In spite of this, solid evidence demonstrates that those countries which legally allow euthanasia are in the minority; thus, signaling that neither social consciousness nor social institutes in general are ready for this.
Debate Round No. 1
sixth_SENse

Pro

sixth_SENse forfeited this round.
Arcanas

Con

Waiting on Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
sixth_SENse

Pro

sixth_SENse forfeited this round.
Arcanas

Con

Arcanas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by sixth_SENse 1 year ago
sixth_SENse
@MrJosh, thank you for your comment, I really did not know about the concept of PAS before. Nevertheless, I'm still quite sure that in case of euthanasia this is actually the patient, not the doctor who decides to end life. What is more, for me the definition of 'sound mind' seems to be vague. Is there any precise definition?
Posted by MrJosh 1 year ago
MrJosh
You are conflating euthanasia with physician assisted suicide (PAD). You are arguing for one, while describing the other, but they are not the same thing. The main difference is that euthanasia is one person deciding to end another s life in order to end suffering, while PAD is a physician assisting an individual of sound mind to end their own life. The main difference is informed consent, a basic medical concept.
No votes have been placed for this debate.