The Instigator
yunsta
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
whooplaah
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Is killing someone without their knowledge murder?

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 4 votes the winner is...
whooplaah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 309 times Debate No: 87260
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

yunsta

Pro

Should involuntary euthanasia be valid at any point?

Involuntary euthanasia befalls when euthanasia is executed on a person who in their own rights has provided none whatsoever informed consent, either because they do not choose to die, or because they were not asked. This issue has been put to question multiple occupations resulting in religious fanatics shoving the Bible down our throats and ranting on about gods plan; however, sometimes there is really nothing we can do about it. Personally, I find active euthanasia quite similar to abortion, just a more live version. Having a brain dead, or incredibly sick child with no future possibility would rather cause quite a hassle where child euthanasia comes to light as an option. This is the only case involuntary euthanasia is justified upon my eyes. Although some may doubt the fact, that it"s "playing god" deciding whether someone should die or live which is reasonable considering the circumstances however, would you rather live or witness someone you love live in misery. There has been some statistics release on euthanasia in Netherlands stating that 2,300 people died upon patient"s wishes in comparison to 1,040 people died from involuntary euthanasia, which would add to an average of 3 deaths per day in which 14% of these patients were fully competent and 72% had never given any indication that they would want their lives terminated.

Although it may seem wrong, I still believe that involuntary euthanasia is acceptable in strong cases, where the patients have no chance of recovery or is extremely sick.

Sources:
http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org......
http://www.lifenews.com......
whooplaah

Con

I support voluntary euthanasia, and I support euthanasia for comatose victims if such orders are specified in their living will. I think that when a situation arises that a person is unable to communicate their wishes and has not done so prior, it is the obligation of the living to keep them alive (to the best of their ability).

I understand that in some situations a family may have limited funds and be unable to afford expensive hospital bills for respirators or live-in nurses. I sympathize with a parent who watches in pain and helplessness as their child slowly shrivels in their bed, feeling that their child will never laugh or smile or even move again.

I draw the line, though, in that humans can predict the future.

I will now cite several examples of "hopelessly comatose" patients whose caretakers wished would just die, that came out of their coma and went on to live productive lives.

Martin Pistorius:
http://wnep.com...
https://www.ted.com...
One young man fell into a coma as a child and stayed in a vegetative state for 12 years before waking up. His case is particularly interesting because in the book he has written, he became conscious of the world around him after only 2 years in the coma. Though he was still classified as vegetative, and though his caretakers continued on as though he were just a body, he has memories of his family visiting, talking to him, and turning on the television.
Martin also has a TED talk where you can hear his story (linked above).

Sam Carter:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
This grandfather slipped into a coma and doctors gave him a 30% chance of recovery. He was only in the coma for 3 days before being revived by music.

Gazeta Dzialdowska:
http://www.theguardian.com...
A polish man is in a coma for 4 years, and then regains consciousness but is paralyzed and mute for another 11 years, then recovers.

Rom Houben:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
For 23 years a comatose man is conscious of the world around him, just unable to interact or communicate. Doctors declared him vegetative at the time of his car crash, but later technology revealed that his mind was still functioning.

Though the cases might be rare, they point out that even medical doctors sometimes see things that defy reasoning and medical precedent. Though the decision to euthanize a comatose patient may seem tempting, and their recovery unlikely, modern medicine is still not completely accurate in this regard. We can't be 100% sure that a person will never wake, and, as in Rom's and Martin's case, we cannot even be 100% sure that they are unconscious.
Debate Round No. 1
yunsta

Pro

yunsta forfeited this round.
whooplaah

Con

I suspect that the 1 hour time limit for posting a response was not the best option. Or perhaps I misunderstood the stance of the OP?

I don't want to monopolize the debate, and will pass the post back to @yunsta for our closing statements.
Debate Round No. 2
yunsta

Pro

yunsta forfeited this round.
whooplaah

Con

I guess the voting will just be limited to the initial posts.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by dtien400 9 months ago
dtien400
All right, thank you!
Posted by whooplaah 9 months ago
whooplaah
It is a little ambiguous what the initial stance is. I hope I understood him/her correctly. Based upon his/her last statement:

Although it may seem wrong, I still believe that involuntary euthanasia is acceptable in strong cases, where the patients have no chance of recovery or is extremely sick.

They believe that involuntary euthanasia is acceptable (in extreme cases). I will argue against that point, that there is no such thing as an extreme case since there is no such thing as a mild case.
Posted by dtien400 9 months ago
dtien400
Oh, I see you have an opponent. I'd still like clarification as I'm interested in following this debate. Thank you!
Posted by dtien400 9 months ago
dtien400
*your stances
Posted by dtien400 9 months ago
dtien400
Yunsta, I am very confused as to what this debate is about and what you're stances are on the subject of the debate.

The debate is titled "Is killing someone without their knowledge murder?" Do you believe it is or isn't murder? It seems like you believe it isn't murder, but you are Pro, so logically it would seem you believe it is murder. What is your stance? Or is this even the subject of the debate at all?

Is the real subject of the debate "Should involuntary euthanasia be valid at any point?" If so, you are Pro, so logically you would be arguing involuntary euthanasia should be valid at any point. However, in your argument you say "I still believe that involuntary euthanasia is acceptable in strong cases," which means you don't believe involuntary euthanasia is valid at any point, just in some cases. What is your stance on involuntary euthanasia?

Please reply, I am considering debating you :) This seems like an interesting debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 9 months ago
famousdebater
yunstawhooplaahTied
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 Hylian_3000 9 months ago
Hylian_3000
yunstawhooplaahTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 9 months ago
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
yunstawhooplaahTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct: Forfeited turns for Pro. Sources: First hand-testimonials about people who recovered from coma's provided anecdotal evidence to support the con argument. It was unclear how Pro's sources applied other than a definition.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
yunstawhooplaahTied
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: Forfeiture