Is Euthanasia Justified?
Debate Rounds (3)
The First Round Is Acceptance
The Second Round is The Main Argument
The Third and Final round is the rebuttals and last words
michaeltaffe3 forfeited this round.
How many times have you heard someone say: "I just don't want to be a burden to my family, so if I ever become a vegetable, pull the plug".
There are many medical cases on record where people have been judged to be "irreversably brain dead" and then have gone on to lead perfectly normal lives.
Here are some examples:
This little 21-month old girl ingested a huge quantity of anti-depressant drugs on February 4, 1988. After examination, doctors at Mercy Hospital pronounced her clinically brain dead and stated that she would be a good candidate for organ donation. However, after being declared brain dead by the doctor, she began to recover. On February 11, one week after the near-fatal incident, she was released from the hospital, fully functioning.
Carrie A. Coons, 86, of Rensselear, New York, was declared to be in an "absolutely irreversible vegetative state" by her doctors after she suffered a stroke and cerebral hemorrhage in November of 1988. For nearly five months, she neither spoke nor showed any signs of alertness. Her 88-year old sister and various doctors and lawyers petitioned the state Supreme Court to allow the removal of her feeding tube. Her doctor, Michael Wolff, a nationally recognized expert in geriatric medicine, declared that she was in a "hopeless" state with "absolutely no chance of recovery."
Coons was the first New York citizen whose petition to die was granted by the State Supreme Court. However, just two days after the Court granted the petition, she woke up and began to eat and speak.
Harold Cybulski a 79 year old grandfather, of Barry's Bay, Ontario, had been pronounced "brain dead and comatose," and the experts who pronounced him so stood by to disconnect his life support systems just as soon as his family said their last goodbyes. His two-year old grandson ran into the room and yelled "Grandpa!" Cybulski woke up, sat up, and picked up the little boy.
Six months later, he was leading a completely normal life, to include driving the new car he had been looking forward to buying. Cybulski's doctors could find "no explanation" for his instant recovery.
Barbie Blodgett and Her Baby.
On June 30, 1988, near Yakima, Washington, the car that 24-year old Barbie Blodgett was riding in was struck by a drunk driver. Three months pregnant at the time, she slipped into a persistent coma, and experts believed that she would never regain consciousness, because her cerebrum, the large part of the brain which controls consciousness and voluntary functions, was simply not working at all. She was unable to speak or eat and was fed through a stomach tube.
Other experts predicted grimly that the baby she was carrying would die and/or would worsen her condition to the point of death. However, her family maintained hope, and on December 9, 1988, 8-pound Simon Alan Blodgett was born perfectly healthy. The day after the baby was born, Barbara Blodgett recognized her son, Simon, and began to regain consciousness. A month later, she could communicate and feed her newborn.
These are all cases of people that would have been great candidates for euthanasia, but they beat the odds. If there is even a chance that someone could hang onto life and make it, we should give them that chance! Even if they think at that moment that they want to die, we should help them get to the point to where they value their life again. No matter how many safety precautions we put in place, people slip through the cracks and there are exceptions to every rule.
Dead people cannot change their minds.
michaeltaffe3 forfeited this round.
sarahgarner forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Xerge 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: Con was the only one who provided a case.
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.