Legalisation of euthanasia.
Debate Rounds (5)
i believe that there is no one who is 100% healthy. we all lack something and at one point we are going to break down when those deficiencies go deeper. that a natural situation and anyone can face it and when it reaches a point of death then its fine we will bury you because everyone is going to die someday. for this fact only i have a reason to argue with the legalisation of euthanasia, if you know that person with a terminal illness is going to die someday why speed up the process. someone may seem to ill like in the case of nelson mandela but in actual fact they may get better as he did when the family members tried to perfom euthanasia on him and i really believe that everyone deserves a chance to fight for his life and he fails that's it
euthanasia is abused by greedy family members or heirs that will be eager to inherit a family member's wealth or estate in some cases companies. now can we allow someone's death all because of some relative's concern who in actual fact wants to inherit wealth. i hereby firmly disagree with euthanasia for it is a disguise of real murder.
some people face impossible pain especially when it comes to euthanasia and they ask for it. its a painful period and a healthy person knows that decisions made in pain are extreme and are not considered at most times so the point of it being a patient's choice does not justify anything
this decisions come due to financial imbalance or the doctor's report but as i said earlier if everyone is going to die someday then if they by any chance are found to be still living let them be. life is the only valuable thing the world can name because everything else comes from and the best we can do is to try and keep it until it decides to stop not us
i think the world still has a lot of space for everyone then what is the problem
Now on to my points.
You said that everyone that has a terminal illness is going to die someday so why speed up the process. This point is extremely stupid and after hearing this point I'm sure you will find it hard to disagree. More than 50% of terminally ill people die in pain. Speeding up the process would save them a whole lot of pain. As for those that are not in pain their quality of life would be rubbish. What can you do whilst paralysed from the neck down. Not a lot. Also the terminally I'll need around the clock caring for. This May force those being cared for feel like a serious burden to their family and/or carer. Euthanasia would enable the terminally ill to die, happy, knowing that their family is happy. My final point ( I have many more but I don't want to use them all) is on death with dignity. For this I am going to set a scene for you. There is a retired army officer. He was very highly ranked and in his older age had a fatal accident that paralysed him from the neck down. As a highly respected person in society he is easily when his carer has to clean up after him when he unwarily Poos himself. When he dies he wants to be seen as a respectable figure. However as euthanasia isn't legal he must die ashamed of himself as he is now known an up respectable figure. That's all for now and I will be interested to see your response.
Talking about pain that can easily be delt with by pain relieving injections and drugs and that makes your 50% statistics wrong because they do not die out of pain but deterioration of body cells due to the diseases. The quality of life of those not in pain do not become rubbish as they is are chances of survival like in the mandela case. Many people are living with terminal illnesses especially cancer and they are projects taking place right now of people who are fighting cancer i'm sure you see the post on facebook "give me 1000 likes i fought cancer." Now we cannot completely ignore those chances because the person faces a breakdown once and the doctor declares he/she has cancer and is suffering from pain, for God's sake pain is not a disease.Death with dignity, i like that but that is used when someone commits suicide and the army commander is free to do that because it very very legal. Illegalisation of euthanasia is not suggesting that we take the patient to the most expensive hospitals or care units it is simply suggesting that let the people die a natural death whether they are at home or in rural clinic just let them be so they is no burden in a letting a person be.
The world is full of corruption and doctor's are bought by money to make false statements and obviously a person in pain has no time to reconsider the statements and believe me euthanasia if allowed would definitely be abused and the fact that we all going to die is enough reason to let patients be. That is my line of argument.There is a very high risk of uninformed decisions made in pain and in stress caused by terminal illnesses. Everyone deserves a chance to fight for life why take it away. I believe euthanasia is murder and thus should not be made legal.
Anyway, on to my points. I am aware that, if my system were to be put in place, there will be cases where a person doesn't confirm that they wish to euthanize. I also am aware that there isn't much we can do about it apart from reducing the likelihood of it happening. The way in which we can do this is ask, yearly from the age of 20, via the mail if they wish to be euthanized when in an irreversible (notice the irreversible) coma.
Now you said that people can have injections to reduce pain, but seriously, would you want to be taking injections daily to fight of a pain that will lead to an even more painful death? Also I did not say that the people would die OF pain but IN pain. Two different things.
You also mentioned that the quality of life wouldn't be affected. Well quality of life and death are two different things. Quality of life is how enjoyable your life is, in this case whilst with an irreversible disease. As for your next point about 1000 likes on Facebook, well, it isn't very clear so if you could explain that in your next argument I would appreciate it.
Death with dignity doesn't only apply to suicide. What I mean is the soldier (this doesn't have to be a soldier it could be anyone from a doctor to a teacher) is embarrassed because of their actions whilst unaware of them.
Letting someone live whilst they have motor neurone disease, for example, is silly. Again, what can you do whilst paralysed from the neck down, I ask you?
Now for your final paragraph. You said that doctors could be payed to kill of people not wanting euthanasia. Firstly all physicians follow a physicians code of ethics. This is a list of rules that all physicians must follow. One of these is 'physicians can not allow his/her judgment to be influenced by personal profit or unfair discrimination. Any doctor not to follow this rule can be kicked out of the system for good. Of course there will be the odd one or two that still would get banned, but worrying about that is like saying we should ban school (as much as I wouldn't mind it) because you are afraid teachers might get paid to give better grades.
Finally you said that you believe that euthanasia is murder. It isn't. When someone is about to euthanize, and this is a fact, they are given the pills that will kill them pain free and are reminded that they will die if they take the pills. You may use the argument, but their decisions might be wrong as they are in pain. But you wouldn't argue that because you would be contradicting yourself. You even said that there are injections and drugs to relieve the pain, therefore the decision would be in the right mind.
That's all for now
Now in the case of the irreversible conditions do you actually think the mail system will work.Let us take a look at the world population right now it is over 7 billion and who will be working on such a silly program like asking a person if they wish to be killed in the later future.If they do confirm who will hold the records moreover will the information reach every hospital in the world.Besides not everyone has an mail account looking at africa or the third world countries most of the people do not know about that and if we legalise euthanasia everyone is affected including those people without mails so that point is rather absurd.
Moving on, how can we reduce the chances of a a person to get into a coma? This is caused by shocks or an unexpected event causing the brain to shut down.There is no way we can stop that.
Yes i would support the pain killer injection and pills rather than to kill a person all because they are IN pain something we can deal with.What we care about is the the body cells and the system of the person and if they are chances of survival take them.About the 1000 likes on facebook, they are projects where people are fighting cancer,one of the terminal illnesses, and they are coming out victorious.Those people reached breakdown points where they suffered impossible pain and obviously a quality of life that is not worth it but they were a given a chance to fight for their lives and they are very alive.Some even opted to die but they were decisions made in pain and distress and they were given hope for living and they are living.Imagine if conclusions were made that would have been a great loss.so my point is people with this diseases reach those points but i say if they are given hope they will fight untill their time is up.Why kill them if they are naturally going die one day it does not make sense.
the embarrassment is not actually something to consider.This is a disease and it makes the body to function in a different way compared to its normal state.Everyone expects a person suffering from a disease especially the incurrable ones to do things like poo on himself so there is nothing to be embarrased about that is why it is why they call them 'patients' they are sick.
For the motor neurone disease i also want to ask you, how many people are living in the world yet they do not even aid in its development?They are people who are completely useless out there with the full potential of doing something to help the world but yet they are just sitting doing nothing.Why don't you kill of them if it is silly to let someone live because he/she cannot do anything.Do you really think it is silly?We are talking about people not flies or coakroaches you can kill anyhow.
the school setup and the hospital is different.The doctor's decision is going to map the fate of the patient.If they are one or two doctors that can get paid that calls for a lot of worrying because they are deciding on the life of a human being nomatter how few they.Life and good grades at school are two different very different i repeat very different.You cannot put the two on the same line that is why they do not close schools if a 10 teachers are paid off and yet we isolate one person from a community and put them in a camp because of cholera(life is the most important on earth)
Decisions are made in pain and if they are taken into consideration knowing fully well that they are not made in perfect circumstances then you will be killing someone.Euthanasia is just a term meant to lighten things up just like adult entertainment for pornography.I think euthanasia is murder.Even if we relieve the pain the disease is still there and it is a DIS-ease meaning the body is not at ease so the decisions are still jeopardised.
I still think everyone should fight for his/her life to the end it is not right to take the take the chances from them.
Conortheconor forfeited this round.
munyaradzi forfeited this round.
Conortheconor forfeited this round.
munyaradzi forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by daem0n 1 year 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:||1||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro loses for rudeness (e.g. calling Con's argument "stupid") and for forfeiting first. S&G: Con's writing is atrocious and barely readable. Arguments: Con says life is the only valuable thing in the world, and euthanasia obviously destroys life, so Pro must persuade me there is something more valuable than life. Pro comes somewhat close by questioning what is the point of living in misery, but Pro never gives me a persuasive reason to value anything other than life itself. (It would have been pretty easy to argue that I should value human happiness or quality of life or something, but you cannot count on me to make that argument for you.) Voting Pro would be to vote for the destruction of the only thing that is valuable, so I vote Con.
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.