The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Legalization of suicide

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2016 Category: Funny
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 345 times Debate No: 91100
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Why not? Let the fool die if he wants to.


You idiot. people are Humans, once we don't exist anymore, We won't exist people will sucide over an Game, or an Bullying, Do you like being bullied for being fat, I'll Bully you for right now,

Me- You idiot, Lets go..
You- Lets go where..?
Me- Come with me you idiot.
You- Okay....
Me- Drags to locker room
You- Why!!..
Me-Puts up the underwear with hook,
You- *gasp* This hurts..

On Oct. 12, Brittany Maynard, 29, who suffers from inoperable terminal brain cancer, announced plans to voluntarily end her life on Nov. 1. Maynard"s diagnosis means she will eventually lose all cognitive capabilities. Refusing aggressive chemotherapy treatment, Maynard decided to move to Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. Under Oregon"s Death With Dignity Act, mentally competent terminally ill patients with less than six months to live can elect when to die by taking lethal doses of prescribed drugs. With only a month left to live, Maynard has made her death into a campaign for terminally ill patients" right to die.

However, her decision has been met with fervent opposition from disability rights advocates and religious conservatives. The freedom to live according to one"s beliefs and choices is duly recognized and celebrated in the United States. But terminally ill patients who wish to choose death with dignity versus a painful and prolonged end often face an enormous challenge even to obtain life-ending drugs. Denying mentally capable individuals the right to end their lives in a peaceful manner is a denial of their individual rights to self-determination and freedom of choice.

Oregon is one of only five U.S. states " along with Vermont, Washington, Montana and New Mexico " that allow medically assisted suicide. In the rest of the country, assisting people with suicide (even if they are terminally ill) is a crime. Maynard"s campaign highlights just how intrusive and unfair the laws criminalizing assisted suicide are for terminally ill patients and their families. For one, these patients must accept and live with their diagnosis. Second, asking a loved one to help end their suffering bears the cost of exposing them to the threat of prosecution and jail time.

The fear of prosecution for family members who help terminally ill patients is not theoretical. Last year Barbara Mancini, a 57-year-old nurse in Pennsylvania, was prosecuted for handing her father, John Yourshaw, a lethal dose of morphine. Yourshaw was a home hospice patient in failing health and had repeatedly expressed to family members his wish to die. Mancini was charged with a felony after an autopsy showed that her father died from a morphine overdose. The case was eventually dismissed but not before costing Mancini her job and more than $100,000 in legal fees.

Fear of prosecution is not the only hurdle facing advocates of death with dignity. Disability rights activists and religious conservatives have been very vocal about the ethics regarding assisted suicide laws. "There are hundreds " or thousands " more people who could be significantly harmed if assisted suicide is legal," Marilyn Golden, a senior policy analyst at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, wrote in response to Maynard"s announcement. Golden maintains that prognoses of terminal illness are often wrong and the disabled or terminally ill may be encouraged to choose assisted suicide for cost reasons. She adds that dying from illness is not necessarily painful because of "palliative sedation."

Opposing physician-assisted suicide denies those disabled by terminal illness the right to control their deaths despite the fact that they suffer no cognitive impairment.
To be sure, there may be terminally ill patients who wish to cling to the possibility of incorrect diagnosis. But most people are convinced of their fatal prognosis, given the advances in medical technology. Besides, there is scant evidence of misuse and no local movements to repeal the laws in states that have death with dignity statutes.

Golden"s assertions regarding treatment costs as a factor in choosing assisted death, particularly for the poor, also do not hold up. A 2007 study published by The Journal of Medical Ethics found "no evidence of heightened risk for the elderly, women, the uninsured, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses, including depression, or racial or ethnic minorities" from the death with dignity statutes in Oregon and the Netherlands.

The criticisms of disability rights advocates suffer from one central contradiction. They claim to protect the terminally ill (who are also often disabled) by insuring that they do not get steered into ending their lives. But that argument takes the crucial decision of choosing death with dignity away from the very people they purport to advocate for. Death with dignity statutes such as the one in Oregon allow cognitively capable patients to decide when and how to end their lives, regardless of their physical abilities. Hence, opposing physician-assisted suicide denies those disabled by terminal illness the right to control their deaths despite the fact that they suffer no cognitive impairment.

Support for the right-to-die

Religious conservatives oppose assisted death on the basis of their beliefs about the worth of life and the meaning of suffering. For example, Kara Tippetts, a devout Christian who is terminally ill, acknowledged in a letter to Maynard the pain of knowing one"s days are numbered. "But it was never intended for us to decide when that last breath is breathed," wrote Tippetts. "Brittany, when we trust Jesus to be the carrier, protecter, redeemer of our hearts, death is no longer dying. My heart longs for you to know this truth, this love, this forever living." As with most religious opponents of assisted suicide, Tippets applies her own definitions of the transcendent value of suffering and the existence of an afterlife on others, including those with differing views.

But none of these arguments are new. What is new, however, is the number of people who are engaged in the right-to-die debate because of Maynard"s decision. A recent Gallup survey shows that 7 out of 10 Americans polled supported some form of physician-assisted suicide. It"s a dramatic increase from just over 50 percent in 1970s. Legislatures in Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have recently introduced death with dignity bills, with votes in New Jersey and Pennsylvania expected this year. Maynard"s campaign may serve as the catalyst for other states to consider similar laws.

A handful of European countries " the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg " have legalized physician-assisted death. But the U.S. doesn"t have to look that far for examples. On Oct. 15 the Canadian Supreme Court heard oral arguments on reversing a two-decade-old precedent, which would decriminalize assisted death and even permit physician-assisted suicide.

As the representative from Quebec, which has already legalized the measure, rightly noted, death is part of life, and assistance in death is not suicide but should more accurately be described as end-of-life care. Unfortunately, that kind of thoughtful debate continues to be absent from our discourse in the United States, where death with dignity is often not an option for the terminally ill.
Debate Round No. 1


We don't need weak-willed individuals on this planet. Those who will suicide over a game, bullying, love etc. are just pathetic imbeciles who deserve to die. And as for patients who are terminally ill, they certainly should be allowed to suicide, they have a valid reason.
The benefits of legalization of suicide would be great reduction of population, more productivity (motivated individuals are the ones who will survive, and lesser population required to serve), saving on cops' resources (paperwork, writing case, interviewing family members for cause of suicide, what a waste of time) and reducing food, electricity and water consumption due to reduction of population.
Suppose I wished to die, and I got arrested for attempting suicide, won't I face a bigger hell in serving my term in prison or mental hospitals? Won't death be a relief then? Although I doubt many people will suicide if it becomes legal anyway.
There are many people who have trudged on despite overwhelming odds, and have faced the challenge of life with dignity. And among them there are some, who must live just to wait for death to come naturally. I don't think the people who don't have the will to live can be compared, can even live with others who hold true to their survival instinct.


Suicide itself used to be part of the homicide laws in most places on Earth.
Suicide was considered a form of murder"murdering oneself.
It is now difficult for us to think of a crime against oneself.
For example, how would it be possible to steal from oneself?

Some early thinking about suicide considered it a crime against God:
The sovereign of the universe owns each and every life.
And anyone who 'takes' a life (even his or her own life)
destroys something that belongs to God.

With a somewhat different twist, within monarchies,
all the people (subjects) were said to belong to the king or queen.
Thus murder or suicide were crimes against the crown,
destroying subjects who belonged to the earthly sovereign.

Nowadays almost everywhere,
irrational suicide is said to be a form of harming oneself.
It is no longer a crime because we want suicidal people
to receive psychological help rather than be punished.

But when the laws against committing suicide were repealed,
usually the law-makers did not change the crime of assisting a suicide.
When suicide itself was a crime,
it was reasonable to outlaw behavior that assisted that crime.
Those who helped people to commit suicide were accomplices.
But logically there are problems with continuing to criminalize
helping someone to perform an act that is no longer a crime.
Careful and consistent laws that replace laws against 'assisting suicide'
can separate behavior harmful to a victim (which should remain a crime)
from behavior that is helpful to a patient (which should not be a crime).


This oddity of half-changed ancient laws
gives us an opportunity to secure the right-to-die
in a completely unexpected place: within the laws against homicide.

We can propose replacing all laws against assisting suicide
with new laws against causing premature death.

Even tho we agree with de-criminalizing suicide and attempted suicide,
we still see them as self-harming behaviors that should be discouraged.
However, when we look more closely,
we notice another kind of behavior that is not harmful.

Here are four ways to distinguish irrational suicide from voluntary death:
Is the behavior harmful or helpful to the person?
Is the behavior irrational or rational?
Is the behavior capricious or well-planned?
Is the behavior regrettable or admirable?
These terms are fully developed in another on-line essay entitled:
Will this Death be an "Irrational Suicide" or a "Voluntary Death"?

If we do not want to encourage irrational suicide,
we could revise our laws against assisting a suicide
to punish people who assist an irrational suicide.
This will require such laws to define irrational suicide
so that it does not include
wisely helping patients to make their end-of-life medical decisions.
Cops try to find evidence of their death, or waste of time.. THey don't waste time they investigate. You never know it was Murder, unless cops was there. What if it was your brother or sister or relatives they sucided but you want to know WHY did they do it, you never find out unless police was there.
Debate Round No. 2


If my relatives suicided, I would be damn ashamed. I don't think knowing the reason would give me any peace either.
As for assisting suicide, let it remain a crime, if you want to commit an act of suicide, do it yourself. I won't help you do this unnatural act of killing oneself.
So my conclusion is that suicide should be legalized as it would reduce the population, indirectly reduce resource consumption, save on cop resources and would reduce number of weak-willed or unmotivated individuals.
Good luck to con.


Correct your Relative died due to Cyber bullying wouldn't you want to findout who did it, and where he/she lives.

good luck to you too,
Debate Round No. 3


I think I would give the bully a pat on the back, he got me rid of a meddlesome and weak-minded fool. And if I am so bent on revenge, I would search tracking software on internet or just hack the relative's account. I can give to my local IT software expert, hacking a laptop should be easy enough. There is mobile verification also, and i will use it to access the facebook/g+ account. And anyways cyber-bullying doesn't seem like a plausible case for a suicide.
Most of the times, the bully doesn't know he went that far. Trust me, I know.
Con hasn't directly refuted any of my arguments so far. He wants cop enforcement for revenge, which would most likely be criminal. If not, it would ruin the life of the bully who mayn't be that gone far yet, and may result the person to turn into a full-fledged criminal.
So my conclusion is that suicide should be legalized as it would reduce the population, indirectly reduce resource consumption, save on cop resources and would reduce number of weak-willed or unmotivated individuals.


Vhog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by everyoneisdumb 1 week ago
the reason suicide is illegal is so that if someone decides to kill themselves and mentions it to anyone who could call authorities, then the police are able to go into that person's home without a warrant and try to prevent the suicide. if suicide wasnt legal then the police cant do anything to help. also- saying "its the person's choice if they want to kill themselves or not" is really problematic.. suicide can be prevented. its a matter of helping that person- accepting suicide or thinking theres nothing you can do about it wont help.
Posted by 413gallowscalibrator 3 months ago

These people are not "crushed losers who just gave up".
Posted by 413gallowscalibrator 3 months ago
That's a different philosophy for prevention, although I'm afraid keeping secrets has never been a very good solution especially when suiside is a topic so close to people and their families. Instead of shaming those who have, or are considering to kill themselves, we should be offering more support to not only them, but them and their loved ones. Having suiside be a quiet or hushed topic or even illegal is doing much more harm than good for the victims loved ones.

Suiside should neither be illegal or legal because it's something the government should not have control over. Someone willing to take away their own life isn't a physical threat to others directly so laws should not have control over it. Although you [KyleStevens] are absolutely right-- it can be incredibly persuasive to others dealing with hard times. Suiside should not be encouraged by any means or be made criminal, rather we as a society should be more open to helping those consitering that fate and willing to offer emotional support.

Please remember who all you are talking to when you tell someone to kill themself. You are talking to our war veterans (people who has risked their lives to keep you safe), the future generation, and even your closest friends and family. Not everyone consitering suiside may be open about it. And please, be kind to those who are.
Posted by KyleStevens 3 months ago
Making a suicide is like a snow ball. If you just give up because of a hardship and end your life, someone in similar state who is on the point of doing the same might just cross the border and take the decision more easily because there's someone who does just the same thing. Thus, the one who is still alive can easily enter in a deeper state of depression for instance and end it all in a second.

If, at any time someone kills himself, no one should know this was the way he died as this is the worst behaviour possible someone can learn from.
Posted by lord_megatron 4 months ago
People who commit suicide are just crushed losers who gave up. And I don't care about the US. I thought it was illegal around the world
Posted by 413gallowscalibrator 5 months ago
Suicide is not illegal in the US to begin with. Although your opinions on why it should be made legal are repulsive to me. You claim that people who are not worried about taking their own lives are better than those who do. There are brilliant, caring, incredible people in this world who have been bullied or simply question their existence who not only deserve to life but are needed in this world. If everyone was so sure of themselves and never questioned who they were as a person than I am afraid we would be no where as a society. People considering suicide offer perspective that you yourself cannot see. With different perspectives we as a human race are able to find alternate solutions, become more creative and be more productive.
Posted by lord_megatron 5 months ago
Oh but it is. Go to a police station/court, and say suicide should be legal.Would be the best joke ever
Posted by Hayden413 5 months ago
The category isn't funny!
Posted by lwittman 5 months ago
Random person- "Ooh suicide is illegal, I guess I won't do it so my dead self doesn't have to face the consequences."

This is why I agree with Lord
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 months ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a humorous case about freeing up resources, which instead of being refuted con offered plagerism: &