Euthansia Should Be Legalised
Debate Rounds (3)
This differs from Mercy Killing, which is done at times without the consent of the person who is to die. I"m arguing from the standpoint of Euthanasia, in which the patient/person who is going to die is aware of and consents to their treatment.
Reasons for this belief:
I am arguing that the practice of killing someone with their knowledge and consent should be legal. It is in my opinion that if someone is in enough pain that they request to be put out of it, then it should be legal for them to seek and receive that painless end. If this practice was legal, I believe that there should be restrictions. It would not be a requirement in all cases of extreme suffering, nor would it be acceptable to allow someone who is mentally unable to decide what treatment is beneficial to them to make the decision to end their own suffering. An example of when this would be an acceptable option would be when a given patient was going to die, without question, but would be waiting for weeks or months to end their suffering in a natural , painful way. In such a case, I believe that it is not only a good option to give, but that it is more ethical to allow them the choice to die than to force them to live out their life"s end in pain and suffering.
1.Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life
2.Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or sick) are worth less than others
3.Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable
4.Euthanasia might not be in a person's best interests
5.Euthanasia affects other people's rights, not just those of the patient
6. If euthanasia is legalised, then drugs and murder should be legalised too.
7. The patient may have a chance of recovery
8. Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives
2. As I mentioned above, these lives in addition to all lives in peril, remain worth something, if not worth more than the lives of others. This is because when they are brought into question, it becomes of dire importance to allow the person receiving treatment to make decisions about their own life, and for those around them to step back and give the respect for that life that is due.
3. As mentioned in the original debate post, Euthanasia would be done solely in cases where the person to die would be the one to decide.
OP: "This differs from Mercy Killing, which is done at times without the consent of the person who is to die. I"m arguing from the standpoint of Euthanasia, in which the patient/person who is going to die is aware of and consents to their treatment."
4. In the case of it not being in that persons best interests, why choose this option? I'm assuming by "not be in the person's best interests" that you mean there may be other alternatives? As mentioned in the first post, " It would not be a requirement in all cases of extreme suffering". There are, in some cases, alternative treatments that could save the persons life, therefore eliminating the option of Euthanasia.
5. These rights, namely, those of the physician giving treatment, the family, and the patient are all affected, however, they are not affected in any way that would justify removing the option of Euthanasia. The physician has all ability to deny giving treatment themselves, and to instead refer the patient to another physician who would be willing to perform such a treatment. There are forms which exist to allow physicians the right to refuse to treat a patient for personal reasons besides those written in the law.
6. Drugs and murder are very separate from Euthanasia. Euthanasia is not murder, defined as the "unlawful premeditated killing of another human being." Clearly, Euthanasia differs from this, both in that the person who will die is both aware of it and, more importantly, consenting. Additionally, this form of death would be entirely lawful in the legal scenario.
7. This is not always true. Terminal illnesses are defined as, "any illness which ends in death. There is no possible chance of recovery."
AS the patient may not always recover, and at times, cannot nor will recover, then it is entirely justifiable to allow them to end their suffering. Certain terminal illnesses, (frequently cancers), may take months to successfully kill a patient, while being untreatable the whole time. This is a prime example of when Euthanasia should be acceptable. The patient will not recover, will continue to suffer until their eventual death, and should, out of respect for their lives and suffering, be allowed to die by their consent.
8. As stated earlier in the first post, "nor would it be acceptable to allow someone who is mentally unable to decide what treatment is beneficial to them to make the decision to end their own suffering.". If someone is in a state of mental instability of any kind, then they should not be allowed to decide their treatment. In such a case, it would be entirely unethical to allow them to decide. If someone was mentally stable, yet in poor health, then it is again unethical to bar them from making a decision about their own life.
What is this so-called "mercy killing"? Well, basically, it"s still killing, but out of mercy. Thanks, Captain Obvious. The thing is, the main method of mercy killing is ending one"s life. Imagine getting high grades in school"yet your method for doing so is bribing your teacher. And that"s Machiavellian; which means by our creed and our morals, we cannot simply accept that sort of mindset.
Is killing ever justifiable? Is there really any way to justify putting someone's life to an end? If Euthanasia is legalised, killing will become much more broad and it will be difficult for the law to enforce the law properly and justly
Legalisation of voluntary euthanasia will result in what is commonly referred to as the "slippery slope" effect. Some of those in favour of the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia with the appropriate safeguards oppose the idea of non-voluntary euthanasia being permitted. Yet, if voluntary euthanasia is legalised others in favour of non-voluntary euthanasia would argue that non-voluntary euthanasia should also be permissible. After all if one form is allowed than why not the other? Why should patients who cannot expressly request euthanasia be discriminated against? Why should their right to end their life be taken away because they cannot communicate as opposed to their fellow human beings who can ask for death?
Now for a more religious stance:
Euthanasia is against the word and will of God
Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life
Suffering may have value
Halogen forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a close debate. Pro's argument that people should be able to choose to live in pain or die was not really addressed by Con, who needed to expand on her "there may be value in suffering" rebuttal. On the other hand, Pro did not really provide good arguments against the "sanctity of life" and "some lives worth more than others" points that Con raised. However, he was effective against her other points, I thought. Overall, I was convinced by Con's argument about the pressure and discrimination implicit in labeling certain people legally able to die and others not. Conduct: I would have given conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit, except that she lost conduct too for her "Thanks Captain Obvious" remark.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.