The Instigator
Vaizar
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ruiran0326
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Is Euthanasia moral?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
ruiran0326
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,362 times Debate No: 40780
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Vaizar

Pro

First round for acceptance and answers to some questions:

1)Wikipedia allowed?
2)Gotta have references please
3)I suck at debating

Okay yeah looking forward to this... I have some severe opinions so please don't think I'm flaming <3
ruiran0326

Con

I accept your debate! I look forward to it.
Debate Round No. 1
Vaizar

Pro

So first of all, I forgot to make it 5 rounds instead of 3. So if you want to debate again after this one, I'm fine with that...

Anyways, let me cut to the chase. I believe that euthanasia is moral because it is not murder, it is merely a way to end someone's suffering sooner rather than later, and also save some money while you're at it. The word euthanasia means "easy death", from the Greek words "eu" meaning well, and "thanatos," meaning death[1]. Therefore the point of euthanasia is not that they are ending a life because they just feel like it(doing this is considered murder), but they are doing it to relieve suffering. If a man is going to die in 2 months, why not just end it earlier? I mean, by just dying earlier you can save someone from going bankrupt-keeping a terminally ill person alive for their last days costs $50000-$100000[2]. Additionally, it's not someone else who makes the choice of if you die or not; it is you. If you want to live for another 2 weeks but die anyways, and make someone go bankrupt in the process, knock yourself out(no pun intended, please don't die if you want to). But if you want to go out like a man who chooses to die instead of sitting there whimpering who doesn't want to die, good job, that's a good decision imo. So, euthanasia is moral because it saves money and it is an easy death, not a painful one. Also, YOU make the choice.

Thanks, looking forward to your response. (to everything.)

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://pulltheplugonlife.wordpress.com...
ruiran0326

Con

Before I proceed with my main arguments, I would like to refute your points.
First of all, you state that euthanasia is not murder. However, according to Merriam-Webster, a legitimate dictionary, murder is “the crime of deliberately killing a person.” [1] Euthanasia is certainly deliberate on the part of the physician that performs it. Also, murder is definitely an acceptable term to describe euthanasia because it is illegal in the United States and many other countries in the world.
Next, you say that the point of euthanasia is to relieve suffering. However, sources show that most of the time, euthanasia is not performed to relieve the patient of pain, but instead to relieve the physicians of the arduous duty of keeping the patient alive. [2] I repeat, the physicians are merely killing off patients to lift a burden off of themselves! This also results in the killing of those who have not asked to die, which is not morally acceptable to the slightest degree!
Lastly, you state that “dying earlier can save someone from going bankrupt.” However, how heartless would it be to kill someone off - let alone without their consent - purely for the purpose of saving money? Given, this is a large amount of savings, but we are discussing precious lives here! Once money is gone, it is retrievable; however, once a life is gone, it will never come back!
Now I will move on to my arguments.

First of all, euthanasia has been prohibited by the medical field for thousands of years. Why? Clearly because it is the most immoral, atrocious thing one could do! Killing purely for the sake of one’s money and peace of mind - how could this ever be justified?
Next, euthanasia simply degrades patients. First of all, a person is not deprived of value as a result of a terminal illness resulting in chronic dependence. On the contrary, they are ever more valuable, because they have so little time left to live and so much to say! Also, placing patients at the hands of physicians that freely use euthanasia demotes the status of those poor, ailing people by taking away their right to determine their course of life or death. This also gives the physicians themselves the right to kill, which is clearly unacceptable. [2]
Last, euthanasia would promote the idea of suicide, both in the social context and in the patients’ minds. It would result in the social acceptance of suicide as a way out of pain such as that derived from terminal illnesses. Also, as patients would feel as if they are a burden on their loved ones or society, they would consider suicide as a way to relieve their encumbrance on the world. [2]
I look forward to your response.

1. http://www.cqv.qc.ca...;

2. http://www.merriam-webster.com.....

Debate Round No. 2
Vaizar

Pro

Vaizar forfeited this round.
ruiran0326

Con

As you have forfeited your round, I assume that you agree with my points.
I now rest my case. Thank you for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
Vaizarruiran0326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was just not played very well by Pro. Conduct for FF to Con.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
Vaizarruiran0326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
Vaizarruiran0326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, and left con's arguments unrefuted.
Vote Placed by Miles_Donahue 3 years ago
Miles_Donahue
Vaizarruiran0326Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made the most convincing arguments, and Pro forfeited.