Government should permit Euthanasia
Debate Rounds (3)
* Euthanasia means an action that intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.
What is the problem?
* I will let government permit this solution as a way to solve some major problem like a disease that will spread if the patient's life haven't been ends or a no possibility of cure by the current medical technology.
What will i Do?
* I stand in "Government should permit Euthanasia"
How is the procedure?
* Condition needs to do Euthanasia are:
1. have a permission from their own family (Father, Mother, Son, Daughter)
2. if patient already say OK or if patient have no more possibility of cure and burden their family in taking care of.
If two of the condition are fulfilled, the solution can be used.
What is my target?
* Help the patient's family to let off the burden because of patient's sickness.
I agree with Gandhi, and am therefore against the resolution as previously stated.
The opposition states that the government will use euthanasia when people are ill, so therefore, the following arguments will be aimed to this point
1. Euthanasia weakens societal value of Sanctity of Life
2. Euthanasia results in cascading consequences.
Now to my first argument
1. I agree with the fact that we need to protect the people for illness, but euthanasia is NOT the way to do so. Isolation units and quarantine are more effective than executing individuals for being sick. By putting people is isolation, we better protect the public, since the illness is then isolated, and not in the outside world, waiting to be put to death. Furthermore, by killing these people, we devalue our core values as rational beings. We are all taught from kindergarten until death that harming other people is wrong, and murder is completely unacceptable. However, the Pro is disregarding societal value, and is allowing people to believe that the bodily harm of others to "save" people is ridiculous. By doing this, we beg the question "Does euthanasia save lives?", and as I have already stated, this is the least effective means of doing so.
2. Not only does permitting government use of euthanasia devalue Sanctity of Life, it will also result in cascading consequences. Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia, and the killing of people that are thought undesirable. We need to recognize that we are all taught from day one that life is sacred, and we should not devalue it, but the Pro is doing so. Pro teams allow people to be put to death voluntarily, but when does this stop? We end up having to draw the line somewhere, but at that point it is too late. We should NOT permit government use of euthanasia, because as previously argued, it holds more life saving potential without devaluing societal ideals.
I would give some arguments to take care of opps attack.
In this argument, I manage to taking a clash in three arguments
1. What is Value of a life and how to value
a. freedom of choice
b. the right to value life
c. euthanasia not a murder
2. How the cascade consequences would be less happened
3. How to taking care of some cases with Pro and Cons Proposal
a, parallel cases
1. Euthanasia doesn't weakens societal value of Sanctity of Life.
* I get the idea that life is precious and valuable. But, every people must died. No one can live immortally. How precious your live, are depend on how do you value it. It's matter of Choice. the one who can value their own life is your own self. In this case, the patient. If the patient feels that he is ready to accept death, and their family accept this decision, it's their problems. No one can judge them in morality because you are not the patient.
Euthanasia is not a murder. It's a yes for taking someone's life. But, as you know, the condition of killing would be state as murder if the victim not accept death or by force.
I just let the government to create a small help by creating a new regulation to permit Euthanasia within the procedure.
Again, it's matter of choice, government permit it, you can use it if the condition are met.
I also think that your new proposal about isolation and quarantine the patient are contradicting to your case. The way you did that are also let them died slowly. It's not the same with Euthanasia? You just give them plenty of time to the patient with no certainty of the patient get back healthy as a normal people. in this case, I see that you give a new solution that most likely agreeing to the pro side and with the less effective solution.
To answer your question, "Does euthanasia save lives?" I would answer no. In my precious statement, I state that euthanasia means an action that intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. So, it does not save lives. Because the patient are already accepting death.
2. Cascading Consequences
Involuntary euthanasia is not something that need to be afraid of. In hospital's ordinance, they state that if someone need to have an operation or not, depends on the patient and blood siblings or family acceptance. If the the patient already say yes (The priority of this procedure) so, it's fine to do so. If not, the euthanasia is illegal, because not in procedure. If illegal, they should be punished (the matter of fault). The punishment should be appropriate with the state obligation.
I can take your goal is holds more life saving potential without devaluing societal ideals. But, how if they died slowly, they are suffering you know? you can take a philosophical based like that without knowing what exactly happened in society.
3. Parallel Cases
* Nowadays, There are many cases about a sickness that can't be cure. their family have a lot of burden in taking care the patient as their own family, they also have a burden to taking care their own family (exclude the patient), they also need to be responsible to the patient whether if he died or not.
Check this one story : a patient that have already reaching an age that he can be called as grandfather, have already sick and hospitals are give up to taking care of him. Your grandfather already told you that he is already happy to live in this world and have no attachment to this world. He accept to die. You are a middle age father who have a family to taking care of but your money would be spent a lot more to this no possibility of cure disease. You have no other option but to stick to the "societal value of Sanctity of Life Cons version", that if you do Euthanasia, it will be a bad thing and bla.. bla.. bla..
then, without any other choice, he spend his own money to let Hospital take care of him or let him slowly died in your house. In the end, you have spent a worthless time, money and burden in taking care someone whose already accepting death.
(you can also find the cases like this one in "my sister's keeper" movie)
This story shows that how no effective your ideas against the practical thing in the society. Maybe a religious man would doctrine you to be a good person in taking a high value of a people's life. But some cases, you can't be so religious. some action needs to do in this kind of problems.
This also show that if government permit Euthanasia, this man could take the choice and not being in burden by the morality problems in society (because it's legal, so it is not a weird or fault thing in society (change of paradigm)), not being burden by the worthless effort with no gain at all. (no possibility to cure, patient accept death, choice can be taken or not)
By this three arguments, I stand in my proposal that :"government should permit Euthanasia" one more time. Thank You.
Here I will address these three arguments my opponent has provided
1. Euthanasia doesn't weaken societal value of Sanctity of Life
1. The main argument presented here is that by not killing people with Euthanasia, I will just let them "die slowly", and this point was mainly directed at the isolation unit plan.
For starters, isolation units are made to treat the ill. I believe you have the misconception that we just let people sit in the hospital and rot, and that is completely ridiculous. The Ebola cases, for example. There are isolation units designed to keep the diseased away from the others, resulting in the containment of disease, which actually better protecting the lives of others by keeping them healthy, and providing safe treatment for the diseased. This way, we can actually save more lives, and though the death of the "grandpa" saddens me, the lives of hundreds of others outweighs that in the end, since we better protect the people, and society itself. More on why there is no "slow painful death" will follow in my third point.
Furthermore, isolation units are actually not contradictory in this sense. As they are designed to CONTAIN the disease, they protect the public from whatever pathogen "grandpa" may carry. This protects more people, thus better achieving the goal of this debate: Life.
2. The argument that you have provided against the cascading consequences of the Pro is begging the question; why won't it result in the involuntary euthanasia of others? Sure, hospitals are regulating the process, but this ensures nothing. History is littered with the corpses of millions of people killed due to government overreach. Over a million people died in the Soviet forced labor camp called the Gulag in just 20 years of the Stalin era. The Gulag was created in the name of state security to prevent crime and enemies of the government. This is only one of the many instances where more people have died due to government overreach. When you take a look like people such as Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin, they didn't want to obliterate their people, they just wanted what was best. By allowing government to control a power like Euthanasia, there is absolutely NO guarantee that power will not be abused, because as we can see historically, government powers are terribly prone to abuse. We don't need to provide any more powers for the government to abuse, as it is catastrophic to the human condition.
3. I acknowledge the fact that there are illnesses that cannot be cured, and it pains me to even think of the people suffering because of this. But the fact is, WE ALREADY HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE. Families can decide to pull the plug on their loved ones, and allow them to exit life peacefully. Though the question remains, "What's the difference between pulling the plug and euthanasia?" Well, here it is. Euthanasia is actively taking a life, while pulling the plug is a passive act. Euthanasia is actively giving a person some thing to kill them, as you stated in response to my last case. Even if they are asking for it, intentionally killing someone is murder. Also, patients asking to die, are usually doing it under duress (they are sick or in pain etc), which legally may make them incapable of making decisions for themselves. "Pulling the Plug" is usually done at the request of the patients family OR if a living will is discovered for the patient indicating that they do not want heroic measures to prolong life. These are usually signed before the patient is ill, with witnesses - in other words no duress. Patients that have life-support removed do not have to be brain dead. Families decide every day to remove life support from terminally ill patients to let them die with dignity, rather than have to suffer being attached to tubes and wires for the days-weeks-months we can keep them alive with machines and drugs.
By favoring this alternative, we can uphold social values, such as the Sanctity of Life, prevent government power abuse, and protect the public from whatever contagion somebody may carry. With these presented points, I stand against the proposal, that "Government Should Permit Euthanasia", and I urge others to do so as well. Thank You.
1. Con Solution About Isolation
* It's such an ideal solution that i've heard to. Okay, i don't know what happened in the first world country, maybe people like you or the other people who lives in there can easily say that because government are have a regulation of free or maybe a cheap fees to treat patient in the hospitals when they are sick or an accident happened.
But, it just not happened in the Third world country. In my state, Hospitals beg patient to pay before the treatment, (excluding the emergency accident), if you are staying in the hospitals, you gotta paid for more money, if you want to do an operation you need to make sure bring 25% of Deposit first before do the job, etc.
THese kind of thing just stop them to do these isolation thing and they mostly will be treat at home with the doctors coming to home (it's a way more cheaper than in the hospitals).
If you are in this kind of situation, the patient containment would be out of procedure, because the patient are not willing to pay (if they poor) and stay at home to died.
Maybe i can give some example : A spread through air disease like chicken pox happened to a child. in logic, the child need to be contained inside an isolation room right? but not in the third world country. If you are poor and your kids have any kind of disease, they will just put your kids inside a public room hospitals, (contain Maximum 25 patient each room) They can't do any isolation because the capacity is not being able to let them stay for long.
This is parallel with a problem where if someone who in a dangerous spread disease inside the hospital, they can't use this method unless there are some donation or someone kind would help.
(source : http://m.patiekspres.co... -> just translate it with google translate, haha..)
2A. I think the Cons have misread my arguments.
I do say that the Government have a power. But, the power that Government have in this case is not to control.
I have said that the power the Government use was just a power to provide the Regulation for people to used.
In your example about that Gulag forced labor camp is nothing to do with this case. It is a labor camp that under Government control, which Government would do that kind of thing, because of the government obligation is targeted for their own purposes. which we know that their purposes is not under this kind of life or death problem in society. But that's about how the government want they died. It's a PRISONER. Not a kind of thing like Euthanasia.
I think that your evidence about this Gulag forced labor camp is Contradict with your previous and last Solution.
You say that "Gulag Forced labour camp" is give a bad effect. You say that your solution are : Isolation, not in a way of slowly death. Now i will show you how it contradict.
First, Gulag forced labour camp is have the same effect with the isolation or the pull-the-plug solution, which is let them slowly death. The difference is the prisoner have a bad condition to live, and the isolation or pull-the-plug have a good condition to live.
But, in the end, it's still the same that you choose to let them slowly died in peace. But i think it doesn't proof that he would be not died in pain.
If you see in this Euthanasia, it will not be a let-slowly-death occur, but instead to take the patient life without any pain, and it also will be in peace to, because the patient already volunteer to let the profane go.
3. ANOTHER CONTRADICTION
You first said about you would believe in sancity of live. To defend this argument, one should being able to protect the life until the patient died. But by creating a solution like Pull-the-plug is likely to approve that by approving the message of death by a patient (Voluntary death), we could do something about it.
It doesn't matter if you said that it's different between you do Euthanasia or Pull-the-plug. But it still take the people's life by doing action right? The differences is :
Euthanasia is a direct action, and Pull-the-plug is indirect action. But it still an act to taking someone's life.
-> i will add the condition need to take someone's life :
1. There are a living being
2. One Knows that there is a living being
3. Have the intention to taking the living being's life.
4. Do the action
5. The living being died.
In this diagram, you already accepting Euthanasia like i do.
1. I already giving a reason why the Euthanasia would be a good solution and should be permitted and also not in problems with those 2 first problem (Sancity of life and will not happen a cascading consequences).
2. We both know that it's a problem but both side seems to having solution. one support permit of Euthanasia, and one support a natural death.
3. It will harm the actors in the problem, but Con seems not to care about the practical situation and start looking about how the system is so easy to do. If there are such an easy way to do, this motion would not be exists.
4. In the end, COn seems to believe that there are no other way than doing Euthanasia, but COn just misdirect the word into something different but actually have the same intention with mine.
So, in the end, the Euthanasia should be permit by government to solve the issue. Thank You.
1. Con Isolation
For starters, you talk about monetary issues, and how these negatively impact people since medical treatment is expensive. However, you haven't even addressed the monetary cost of euthanasia. The government is obviously not going to supply drugs for assisted suicide, so the patient would have to purchase them, and then consume them, which is a.)Illegal on the grounds that they are not fit to make that decision, and b.) the active taking of a life. I acknowledge that isolation and treatment can be costly, but we have to take into account the VALUE it costs society: Sanctity of Life. By justifying assisted suicide, you endorse a society that has little to no respect for the person. But you're probably thinking "We respect them by allowing them to kill themselves." , but that respect is non-existent, since that person is NOT fit to make that decision in the first place. We have to look at the value of euthanasia, and how it impacts society, not only the individual. I shall address this further in the case.
2a. To start off, I'd like to point out the biggest hole in your argument. You say that, and I quote "But, the power that Government have in this case is not to control. I have said that the power the Government use was just a power to provide the Regulation for people to used. The Merriam Webster definition of regulate is "to control or supervise something" REGULATION IS CONTROL. This contradiction is the main argument in this contention, and therefore, the point falls.
Second, on the Gulag example. As I have already clarified the definition of regulate, we can now dissect your Gulag rebuttal, and why it is false. First, you have stated that euthanasia is to protect the people. So was the Gulag. The KGB listened to everything, and locked these people up for petty crimes, or no crimes at all, JUST TO PROTECT SOCIETY. Euthanasia will be the EXACT same case. By giving a government a power like that, one that literally controls life and death, there is absolutely no way that this will end up protecting the people. All of the maniacal despots of the world did what they did to protect their people. Though the aim is noble, the cost to society is far to great to ignore. You have provided no safeguards for this "Government Euthanasia", so there is no determining where it will stop. Where is the line drawn? We cannot fall into such a vague system in the name of security, because as demonstrated, it leads to the greatest of costs.
2b. Here you point out a "contradiction" in my casework. You bring up the slow death and agony arguments again, but that has absolutely no relation to my original statement. In the Gulag, people were not fed. They were not clothed. They were not bathed. Children shriveled up like raisins due to dehydration and hunger. That is absolutely no comparison for treatment. You clearly hold the misconception that isolation is just locking John Doe in a room and letting him wait out the disease. That is not the case. It is a treatment facility. The sick don't sit and rot, they get painkillers if they are in pain, and the adequate care they need. But back to the slow death argument. Even if isolation or pulling the plug brought this about, they don't contribute to the devaluing of societal ideals. By treating these people, society is assured that they will be cared for in their final hours, and not just juiced up with medication until they croak. By letting the government actively take lives of the innocent, that will clearly cause resent, and it will keep people from seeking care for their problems, resulting in the slow death scenario. What this shows is that by permitting euthanasia, YOU allow people to rot, and YOU allow these people to die in the name of societal protection. Though your cause is noble, you are clearly misguided.
3. Another contradiction? This is absurd. You clearly did not read the explanation of the pull the plug scenario, so I will explain it again. "Pulling the Plug" is usually done at the request of the patients family OR if a living will is discovered for the patient indicating that they do not want heroic measures to prolong life. These are usually signed before the patient is ill, with witnesses - in other words no duress. Patients that have life-support removed do not have to be brain dead. Families decide every day to remove life support from terminally ill patients to let them die with dignity, rather than have to suffer being attached to tubes and wires for the days-weeks-months we can keep them alive with machines and drugs. What this means is that the decision is made PRIOR to illness, whereas euthanasia is not. By allowing someone to make this life changing decision while they are incapacitated, you are just setting them up to be killed. As I have already stated, it is ILLEGAL for the person to make that kind of decision, and the family cannot do so either, since they are incapacitated with remorse. Now, back to the matter at hand. Since pulling the plug is specified BEFORE the illness is contracted, we can assure this decision is rational, and we allow them to die peacefully, and not kill them with drugs they would have to pay for in the first place. We both clearly have the same intentions, but to achieve them by actively taking a life, that is unspeakable. You disregard the law by letting this happen, and the individual, and whoever may be affected. If we just pull the plug, it keeps our moral compasses clear. We allow them to achieve the peaceful death they wanted, without the moral repercussions.
Now, with the voting issues
1. Sanctity of Life
We have both agreed that saving lives is important, but the fact is, actively taking one isn't the case. Pulling the plug, as I have stated, is passive, and specified before it is needed, so we can be sure that decision was made rationally, and we then can avoid legal, and moral backlash.
As mentioned in argument 2a, the definition of regulate literally means control, but you said governments would only regulate. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... As outlined in arguments 2a and b, the consequences of government overreach are huge, and we cannot allow the government to hurt the people in the name of protection.
3. False Contradiction Arguments
You accused me of contradictions twice when you just failed to read the points thoroughly. Outlined above in 2b and 3
With these three rebuttals and voters in mind, I conclude that the negative is the victor of this round. Thanks for the debate!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.