The Instigator
GloversHonorsH
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GloversHonorsF
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Mercy Killing

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...
GloversHonorsF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,025 times Debate No: 38479
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

GloversHonorsH

Pro

Mercy Killing should be against the law because there was no fine line between murder and assistant suicide there have been multiple supreme court cases that would agree that euthanasia is unconstitutional and while some would disagree that it is mandating people's suffering and never know if assistant killing is truly necessary for example,if someone were in a coma and on life support if you pull the plug who's not to say they would wake up the next day if someone was diagnosed with a deadly disease and you kill them because it seems there's no hope then a cure is founds ultimately you never know when it's someone time to pass so if a pro mercy killing law was passed it could increase the risk of killing someone to soon another key point is the religious views of people the Bible says,that God is the giver of life's wouldn't that mean that God and only God alone has the right to taking life?Although not everyone shares the same religious views its within proper humanity to strive for the life of all humans did you know that in Nazi Germany that euthanasia was a custom because they believed in killing the people that have diseases in mental disabilities which have no cure?So do you think it would be wise to promote such a horrific act in America today?So all this in mind anti-mercy killing laws should be in place to protect the lives of all citizens,regardless of health status.
GloversHonorsF

Con

It should not be against the law to "pull the plug" on people living on life support. Mercy Killing is legalized inside and outside the US, and approve in places like the Netherlands and Oregon. In Oregon, an act has been put in place, called the "Death with Dignity Act" which is spreading rapidly across the US. Death with Dignity uses laws as guides to ensure mercy killing is not done illegally. The quote "A number of the World's countries tolerate mercy killing. Physician-assisted suicide has been legal under certain circumstances since 1997 in Oregon under the state's "Death with Dignity Act" explains how physician-assisted suicide is spreading around the US in places like Montana and Washington. Under certain conditions, people suffering tend to ask for their lives to be ended because the pain is to excruciating to bear.

Many cases have situations where people beg for their lives to be taken to avoid anymore following pain, for example: two Belgian twin brothers, 45, who were both deaf chose to die together when they learned they were both going to become blind as well as deaf. Two newly born babies, born without skull caps, and three adults that suffered from incurable diseases were killed with process of mercy killing. They were clearly doomed if they lived. There has been many cases in which people do this including the patient, Mrs. Bayes, who was so ill she"screamed like a dog" if anyone tried to touch her. Conventional medicine could not help relieve her agony. In her last days she repeatedly plead to to die. So finally, Dr. Cox, the doctor stationed to her at the time, gave her an injection of Potassium Chloride so Mrs. Bayes could die peacefully. This concept of mercy killing is very common with older married couples with a spouse experiencing unbearable pain. On March 29, 2013 probation was given to an 86 year old man(Gerry Sanders) who out of mercy, killed his wife of 62 years. Gerry could have faced over 12 years in prison after pleading guilty to manslaughter. Although the Judge, who complimented him for suggesting probation allowed him to walk out of the room. This is just one of the many cases and cases to come involved with assisted-suicide of a spouse.

Mercy Killing or euthanasia follows the same theory of dealing with pain as any other given medicine. Medicine is meant to try to relieve pain and euthanasia's purpose is for people to have a painless death after intense suffering. It is indeed correct that it is immoral to take a life of another person, but it even more immoral to watch someone go through horrific pain before dying, instead of giving them a painless death that everyone deserves. Many people say say there is always hope, but when we know when it's their time we leave them and family members with false hope, and leave them with the burdens such as medical bills because hospital expenses and medicines are very expensive with or without insurance. Which leaves the family a even bigger burden to deal with. As for religion, even though many religions look down upon assisted- suicide there are also many religions would agree with euthanasia. For example, in the Buddhist religion when someone is experiencing pain and on the verge of death it is seen as compassionate to relieve them of their pain as painless as possible.

The concept of mercy-killing is a hit -or-miss topic with many views, but if someone wants to die no one haves a 100% obligation to deny them them the right, especially when they 're experiencing extreme ongoing pains.
Debate Round No. 1
GloversHonorsH

Pro

GloversHonorsH forfeited this round.
GloversHonorsF

Con

GloversHonorsF forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
GloversHonorsH

Pro

GloversHonorsH forfeited this round.
GloversHonorsF

Con

GloversHonorsF forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 3 years ago
Nyx999
GloversHonorsHGloversHonorsFTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both of you are on the wrong sides. :) Glovers Honors H, you are on the pro side, (FOR mercy killing, and yet you argued against it.) Glovers Honors F you are on the con side (against mercy killing) and yet you argued for it. Both of you had grammar mistakes and forfeited rounds, but Glovers Honors F had sources (sort of) and arguments. By the way, are you the same person?