Debate Rounds (4)
You will be given the first block to state your argument and your position. Then we will have three rounds to argue our side.
You will always be pro so make sure you phrase your question so that you agree with it.
note: I enjoy moral/ethical better than political- just something to consider in your topic
To go with my opponent's preference, I will affirm that: Doctor assisted suicide is morally acceptable.
My opponent can offer definitions if he wants, although I'm pretty sure we both know what the topic is about.
There have been multiple accounts where a person is suspected to die, but later survives.
Killing for the sake of money or convenience is wrong no matter in what form
I will explain my contentions more in depth after Pro
1. Quality of life. Some people believe that a life full of suffering is worse than dying. They have every right to believe that. If a patient has a severe medical condition that causes them constant pain, or even periodically severe pain, they have the right to end their life to stop the pain, especially if the condition is terminal.
2. Value to life. Many terminal illnesses require immense medications and machine hook ups just to stay alive. Even then, patients often are severely limited in motor and gait abilities. Many have to spend the rest of their lives in a hospital bed, wired up to countless fluids and machines. Then you have chemo. In all of these cases, you cant enjoy anything life has to offer (can't walk, move, etc) and are only living in a state of technological dependency. People who do not desire such a life have the right to end it.
Also, a person may be in a state of severe depression. Some may have had family members die, lost all their property, suffered severe trauma, etc. In this case they again are living a life of depression and thus have no value to life.
Now to his points.
First off, none of his arguments have warrants, or reasoning behind them. They are just sentences, so you can discard them based on that alone. But here are the refutes anyway.
1. He says killing is wrong.
Nothing is wrong 100% of the time. If I have the opportunity to kill Osama to save thousands, I should. If they want to end a life of suffering, feel free.
2. He says "terminal" patients may survive.
The argument is not about survival, it is quality and value to life. A person may survive cancer but has to live on life support, pills, and/or a state of pain for the rest of their life. In this case they still may wish to die.
3. He says killing for money/convenience is wrong.
Money has nothing to do with this. Killing for convenience is generally wrong, but not in the case where the convenience is for a dying patient
It is very improbable that any dying person would feel pain in his or her last hours because of technology today. Medications have been made specifically for the dying so that they can pass painlessly. Comfort is never the issue in these cases.
The REAL issue here is where to draw the line. When is someone guaranteed assisted suicide? Say a person was in a coma and the family suggested he be killed. Where is the representation? It is nearly impossible to regulate such an interpretive threshold and it should be left alone seeing as it has already been determined that painful death is a thing of the past.
Lastly, I'm going to say that NOTHING gives a person the right to kill another. If a sick person wants to kill themselves than that is their decision. But if a person wants to die, that doesn't give anyone the right to murder. With this distinction unclear, many will get away with murder, calling it assisted suicide. You talk about the greater good but do you even understand what that means? Which is worse: allowing nature to take people as intended? Or allow murders to go unpunished and permitting one man to kill another for money? (Doctors are paid for no matter what they do. It's a fact of life.)
No. It is, however, "alright" when they are in a state of suffering and/or have no value to life.
He says medical prowess can alleviate pains. This actually supports my side. Pain relievers require more pills, injections, and tubes to consistently keep pain away. This ties into my value to life argument, which shows how people become wired in and dependent on machines and medication to survive. Some people may not desire this.
He brings up an example of a family deciding to euthanize their comatose relative. This is a completely different issue. Suicide is the act of killing oneself. If the person was in a coma, they could not make that decision. So this example is nontopical.
"You talk about the greater good"
Where? I dont see that anywhere.
He says allowing death from natural causes is preferable to death from artificial causes. Maybe for most people, sure. But when we just sit and wait for the natural death to occur while the patient is suffering and asking to let himself die, then the pain of living a valueless life outweighs dying a painless death.
He concludes with saying that doctors who assist suicide are murderers. Sure. Fine. Call it whatever you want. However, he has dropped my argument saying that death is justifiable in some instances. This means that while they may be "murderers", they do not deserve punishment or bad stigmatization because they are only benefiting the patient.
Nothing (like killing) is universally wrong.
The entire value to life argument.
Because living in a state of pain is worse than dying a painless death that you yourself desired, I urge a pro vote.
JaketheSnake forfeited this round.
BlackVoid forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years 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:||0||3|
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.