The Instigator
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Euthanasia should be legalized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,398 times Debate No: 64928
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

lannan13

Con



I'd like to thank Wylted ahead of time for accepting this debate challenge.







Rules




Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make his opening arguments.

Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes.

Round 3 is rebuttles by Con and Pro makes rebuttles and Conclusion.

Round 4 Con makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, "No round as argeed upon."

If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points.

No swearing

No trolling.



Euthanasia- Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. ( http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Wylted

Pro

1. We as humans have an inherent right to our own body. The concept of self ownership has been debated for centuries but virtually everybody agrees that we own ourselves. It's the reason that abortion is even debatable. If not for self ownership, the would be no pro choice side of the equation. Self ownership is also why we reject the concept of slavery and allow people to choose their own marriage partners. People own themselves and because of this right to self ownership the government shouldn't attempt to stand in the way of me excersizing my right to die.

2. A lot of really sick people are needlessly suffering just waiting for death to appear in a few short months or years. By allowing them to die prior to this suffering you're merely just cutting off the worse point of their life and actually giving them a chance to die happy. It's sad that as a society we have decided to be kind enough to shoot a deer in the head when it's suffering or put a family pet to sleep but the people closest to us we force to suffer when they'd much rather die.

We need to start treating our fellow human as well as we treat our family pets. We need to allow them to die with their dignity and to end their suffering if they so choose.

3. Another thing not discussed much on this issue is the money that could be saved in health expenses for the government and insurance companies. As well as how much of the scarce resources in hospital that could be saved rather than prolonging the inevitable.

Conclusion- My case is simple. Humans have a right to self ownership and ending their suffering if that's what they want is doing them a favor. Most of my case will rest on exposing the myths about the downsides of Euthanasia.
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Con


Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent.

I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. ( Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.003.) A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent.

.

Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument

Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, “If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia.” However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. (Medical end-of-life practices under the euthanasia law in Belgium.

Bilsen J, Cohen J, Chambaere K, Pousset G, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Mortier F, Deliens L N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 10; 361(11):1119-21.) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. (The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L Health Policy. 2009 May; 90(2-3):181-7)

The euthanasia’s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia’s have doubled since 2007 as well.

The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition.

""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?"

From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain."

From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases."

From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" (http://www.all.org... )

You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. (http://www.all.org... )

Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness

Consent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia’s have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round)

Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. (http://www.rense.com...) They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. (http://www.nysrighttolife.org...)

For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. (http://www.vatican.va...)

Contention 4: Monetary Costs

My opponent argues that the costs of medical bills are a major problem and I typically argue. When Oregon passed Measure 16 their Medical Director, Jean Thorne, stated that Euthanasia would be paid for by the state as “comfort care.” (http://www.pennlife.org...) So you can see that Euthanasia is partially free and that people generally prefer free things over things that cost a lot of money. No I’m not saying that this is an absolute as people still have children and have to have nice things in life to comfort living, but what I am saying is that the state is making the public prefer Euthanasia over keeping their families alive. Plus when you have millions of Americans without medical insurance that would make it impossible to pay for treatement as well.

Wylted

Pro

I feel like my opponent has conceded and actually agrees with me. I'm clearly only advocating for Euthanasia that is voluntary and for people who are in really bad shape health wise. In such a bad state that they would view death as preferable. Keeping this completely voluntary would necessitate keeping a living will. Just like you'd do if you didn't want to be kept on life support. When there is no living will then it becomes a family decision.

A patient would request to be put to death and the family as well as the patient with the help of a counselor and information provided by the doctor would come together, to decide if this is the course of action they want to take. This is the exact same process as the one you'd go through when considering ending life support because this procedure is basically an extension of that.

THE CONCESSION

"only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind "


My opponent issued this challenge and knows exactly what I'm arguing. This is an outright concession and I should win. Me and my opponent are both agreeing that euthanasia should be legal only for people who are in a ton of pain and close to death. This is no different then mercy killing a deer who you just accidently hit with your car and is laying on the ground writhing in pain and close to death.

Lannan, I know you think you're con on euthanasia but you're not. You're actually pro on this topic and just don't realize it.

SLIPPERY SLOPE

My opponent is engaging in a slippery slope fallacy explained like this;

"1.Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2.Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

"This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another."
http://www.nizkor.org...

The slippery slope isn't always a fallacy but it is in this case. Legalizing euthanasia so terminally ill people can choose to die (with the necessary safeguards aka living wills) isn't necessarily or even likely going to lead to killing a bunch of people against their will. As a matter of fact killing people against their will (and even most of the time with their consent), will still be considered murder and punishable by life in prison and even death.

If my opponent is going to argue legalizing Euthanasia will lead to this he needs to show why. He has a good case that it should be outlawed in Belgium or at least heavily reforming the process but that is inconsequential to the case of legalizing it anywhere else.
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Con

Contention 0: Concession

My opponent is putting words into my mouth as he apparently didn't read the full argument that I had made stating that the person in the correct state of mind prefurs life and that when they are sick or in pain they want death, because they will do anything to end their own pain and suffering and this is key as we all have had spurts when we're sick and we wanted to die, because the pain was intense, but we got over it. You see that when a person wants death it's because their mental judgement is skewed and thus the person cannot make the correct sense of judgement. My opponent also states that it must be left to be only voluntary, but in my second contention I will prove why this will lead to other things. If we apply my opponent thought in the last round we can see that it applies to Non-voluntary euthanasia and in some cases involuntary euthanasaia.

Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent.

This argument went unrefuted so I extend across all points.

Contention 2: Slippery Slope.

My opponent is believing that this argument is irrelivant, but this is the actual name of this argument that BioEthicist Ezekiel Emanuel had come up with. I have given proof of this as well as Belgium had originally legalized voluntary euthanasia with the consent of a pain doctor, but now this has decreased dematically as they have legalized other forms of euthanasia and even Euthanasia without the child's consent in Belgium. I have also shown that since the types of euthanasia has become legal the number of euthanasias have doubled and even tripled. Also I have shown in the 4th Contention that Oregon has the state paying for euthanasias showing that the poor will have a general preferance to choose Euthanasia over treatment.

My opponent also drops my point on giving the doctor the killing roll so please extend that across the board.

Contention 3: Self Ownership and sickness.

Extend this point across the board.

Contention 4: Monetary costs.

Extend this point across the board as it was not refuted.
Wylted

Pro

CONCESSION

My opponent has already conceded the debate, so anything I say Is just a bonus. There is no need for the voters to read beyond his concession, and here it is again as a reminder.

"only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind."

I'm not putting words in my opponent's mouth and Voters are encouraged to go back to round 2 and read my opponent's original statement which matches this word for word.

Me and my opponent are advocating only for euthanasia for the terminally ill and with proper safe guards. Are positions are the same even if some of the nuances are different.

SLIPPERY SLOPE

The resolution is "Euthanasia should be legalized". My opponent makes a case for why the process for Euthanasia should be reformed in other countries but fails to show why it shouldn't be legalized.

Here is a reminder of what the slippery slope fallacy is.

""1.Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2.Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

"This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another."


Pretty much all my opponent's arguments fall under this slippery slop fallacy and he has failed to show how legalizing euthanasia will lead to what he believes it will.

CONCLUSION

Vote pro because Me and my opponent agree that people should be able to choose death over a very brief tortured existence.

Vote pro because my opponent concedes (see quotes from round 2 which have been requited a few times by me.).

Vote pro because all of my opponent's arguments amount to the slippery slope fallacy.
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Con

Contention 0: The Concession.



My opponent fails to see that the line of "the correct state of mind," he also fails to see my line justifing that claim by stating that it is natural for a person to choose life over death and that when it's the other way around the person is not in a correct state of mind. Thus them choosing Euthanasia would be invalid concidering that the person isn't in the correct state of mind. Which my opponent has failed to refute thus meaning that there is no concession and that this was just an honnest misunderstanding or a misuse of time by Pro as he has waited until under an hour on each Round before he responded showing that he has either no interest in this debate or a misuse of time.

Contention 1: Unreported and Euthanasia without consent.


Once again, never refuted so I'll extend this argument across the board.



Contention 2:Slippery Slope.



Even if they fall under such reasoning of this category it is still a valid argument that has evidence of it occuring. My opponent has yet to actually attack the point head on, but only ignores the arguments here and calls the argument invalid, because of it being under this classification without trying to disprove my evidence or arguments. So I'll extend my points across the board.

Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness.


Extend across the board.



Contention 4: Monetary costs.



Extend this point across the board as it was never refuted.



Conclusion


In a brief summery, one can see that my opponent hasn't really attacked my case and only went after a phrase and attemtping to use it as a means of Concession, but is false as I have showed that if a person wishes for death they are not in a correct state of mind, which was dropped by Pro, thus showing that they aren't able to choose euthanasia. This is a Catch-22 type situation. The points that my opponent brought up in the first round were completely refuted by me and had no counter-arguments by Pro showing that his case is faulty and has been negated. All, but my 2nd contention was outright dropped by my opponent and he never actually refutes my second contention. All he does is say that it's false and calls it good while not even refuting any of the evidence that I had brought up or any of my arguments there. So with that being said there is no other result then the resolution being negated.



Thank you and please vote Con!

Wylted

Pro

No round as agreed upon.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Envisage what do you think of Unwinding as a type of Euthanasia. I, to an extent, support it, but I still think that it's a horrible thing.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Euthanasia should be carried out with a blunt object. It calms the nerves.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
If I can't beat lannan on this how do you expect to?
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
If lannan is up for it I'd like to debate him on this topic at some point. I'm on Winter Break in two weeks, that'd be the perfect time for me.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Cool.
Posted by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
Gonna vote on this tonight.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Dude, it wasn't a concession. He was saying that in a world where people can make the rational decision to end their lives, euthanasia's good. He also said that people cannot make that rational decision in the real world. If they could, he'd accept it. He's saying they can't. So he doesn't.

He did admit that there was a slippery slope in his argument. However, not all slippery slopes are fallacious, especially if they have precedent and rationale. He focused more on the precedent side, but it showed that euthanasia could, presumably, move to involuntary euthanasia. I don't buy that for a second myself, but that's on the basis of link takeouts I would have provided, and I didn't see those arguments.

Unreported euthanasia is basically euthanasia that didn't go through the normal system that prevents bad things from happening. It's off the books, meaning that they didn't go through the proper channels. The easy response is that those are lapses in the system, not problems with euthanasia as a whole.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
What the hell is unreported euthanasia anyway? Is that like saying post birth abortion.

I could technically show murder statistics in America and call it unreported euthanasia
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
It's cool. I'll take the loss.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
It's cool. I'll take the loss.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
lannan13WyltedTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro continually repeated that his opponent had conceded, to which Con replied that he had not due to the slippery slope issue. At that point, Pro asserted (note I say asserted--he didn't really support his assertion with logical arguments) that the slippery slope argument was fallacious. Con replied with reasons why it was not fallacious, to which Pro replied by repeating what Con had initially responded to. Clearly, re-asserting your assertion is not a refutation, therefore, I award argument points to Con. I also award points for sources to Con because he actually used sources to support his arguments, whereas Pro opted to go without.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
lannan13WyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Also, sources to Con, mainly because so many of them were given, and all of them were uncontested. Citing a fallacy doesn't really count.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
lannan13WyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: con wins most arguments but correct state of mind vs not correct state of mind, that's the most important one. Con needed to prove there were MORE correct states of mind than not. But that little push was all he needed to win! I'll just award one point because of the cost argument put forward. Very close debate.