The Instigator
moneystacker
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Imperfiect
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Resolved: It is wrong to use euthanasia

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 4 votes the winner is...
Imperfiect
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,013 times Debate No: 63993
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

moneystacker

Con

Rules:

1. Pro will post argument first and then I will reply

2. no trolls and try to lower forfeits

3. have fun

4. Just for clarification Pro is claiming it is not right and wrong to use euthanasia while con (me) is showing why it is right and reasons it should be an option.
Imperfiect

Pro

A human life is a human life.

Doctor, nurses, surgeons, gynecologists and all other people of medical professions are all supposed to extend human life for as long as possible.

There is simply no rebuttal.

Feel free to bring up any point sin Round 2, I'll happily expand my case far further and I am actually pro euthanasia personally just to let you know but, alas, this is the side I have found myself to take.
Debate Round No. 1
moneystacker

Con

That is ironic imperfiect cause I am actually personaly con enthanasia XD but since my reasons are religious based no impact so I decided to go pro euthanasia.

Anyway I will respond to a point you listed and put my case
You say this
Doctor, nurses, surgeons, gynecologists and all other people of medical professions are all supposed to extend human life for as long as possible.

Response: Extending a life that has no quality to it and is torture is wrong which is why the state I live in Texas allows euthanasia. You say a doctors job is to extend life but mostly it is to ensure the person has an improved quality of life. So yeah there is

My case

Euthanasian definitions and clarifications:
1st definition from medical dictionary: The act of putting a person or animal to death painlessly or allowing them to die by withholding medical services, usually because of a painful and incurable disease. Mercy killing is another term for euthanasia.
Clarification: Millions of people are diagnosed with severe illnesses every day such as cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease. These diseases have the potential to cause extreme pain. Also, patients with a terminal illness already know that they will die. They are in pain, and are forced into life-prolonging treatments. The delayed life is a future filled with pain and indignity. Life is a beautiful thing full of hope and love, but a terminal illness may change it into agony and worries. Euthanasia is the only way to relieve the pains. For that reason, such patients should be assisted by doctors in order to expedite their death. According to the Journal of Advanced Nursing:
2nd definition from bing: Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.
3rd definition: 2 definitions from the best source ever Merriam Webster:
A. the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering
B. the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals
So as you can see in all these definitions the person was going to have a slow painful death anyway and now I will go to my case.

Intro: The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words "eu" and "thanatos" which combined means "well-death" or "dying well" (Euthanasia, 2008). The fact that life is important has a relative meaning. When a patient with a terminal illness is hover between life and death, the value of a decent death might be more important than uncomfortable life. People falling under the definition of possible euthanasia patients are the patients whose brains are not functioning, or bodies are dying. They may think that they would rather die than lead such lives with their bodies in severe pain every day (Amarasekara, 2002). That is to say, the patients who are kept alive at a vegetative level, or informed of a terminal cancer, are forced to believe in a miracle of a possibility. Therefore, euthanasia should be legalized in the case of a terminal illness.

Observation: I am not saying suicide should be legal or anything like that, I am backing up Euthanasia to let someone suicide only when they are going to die anyway and endure suffering.

cont. 1. Right to not suffer
"We should be able enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights -- the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to. Although it is true that people have basic human dignity and life is sacred, life is not the only way of guaranteeing the dignity of humans. Some people say a decent death is more important than life at the moment of death. In other words, the reason that the right to live is important is not because a man has a body, but because a man lives like a human being. When the pain has increased, the patient's life is no of little living, and the patient really hopes to end it to avoid suffer a pain. These patients were unloaded by the nurses and caregivers and were in horrible condition, often being very emaciated and dirty (Benedict & Caplan, 2007). By this time, euthanasia would be in the best recipe of a patient who is faced with death. This right should not be reserved. If it is legalized, the patient's interest would be protected. Also, if the opportunity of death is not allowed, we might lose the direction that our lives will go in democratic societies today. Therefore, a patient with a terminal illness should have the opportunity and the right to choose death.

cont 2: quality of life
"A doctor"s job is not only to prevent death but also to improve their patient"s quality of life. Not practicing euthanasia at the request of the dying person is violating a person"s rights, creating an economic burden, interfering with a doctor"s job, and increasing suffering cited from mic.com
cont 3: freedom of choice
"Neither the doctors nor the government has the power to decide if you should live or not. Since it is not their life and they are not in your situation, they cannot make that kind of decision for you. They give us the liberty to decide our job, our family, our religion, and even our sex preference. Why should they not give us the right to decide if we want to live a painful life or die a painless death?
Cont 4: Euthanasia is already legal some areas
Legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Albania, Colombia, and Japan and in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Texas and Montana. These countries have embraced the benefits.
Cont 5: Pains experienced when forced to live
A. Physical pain: the diseases that isn't curable is usually very painful not only because it is incurable but also because the person is dying, and dyeing very slowly. Some diseases that are known to cause extreme pain are cancer, aids and Alzheimer's disease as provide by journal of advanced nursing.

B. Mental pain: Some of the patients for Euthanasia have serious mental problems as many neuroscience studies point out. Also some of this mental pain results from the person knowing he is going to die which makes his quality of life very low and his last few months or so to live very miserable whether a spouse is his company or not.
C. Spiritual: Lets say you believe in a religion like mine known as apostolic, you could go into mental break downs because we believe you need the gift of the holy ghost to go to heaven if you are about to die without that and you believe in this as well you could go through insane mental pains because you realize you are going to hell.
Imperfiect

Pro

Imperfiect forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
moneystacker

Con

K debate will resume me and opponent and i talked my bad for 48 hour time should have put 72. Ignore forfeit opponent will respond to arguments next round.
Imperfiect

Pro

The main point from which this entire case shall evolve is that suffering and pain are neither legally nor medically verifiable.

You can measure physical pain itself to some degree but there is no possible way to determine if the psychology of that person is too depressed, anxious or any other variety of clouded judgement to accurately verify if their will to live has truly gone.

Another point to consider is that if we allow euthanasia for physical ailments that are incurable why don't we kill people suffering from asperger's, autism and down's syndrome? They suffer a lot with bullying, devleopmental issues and often grow up to have nightmares of their past. ADHD is treatable but also incurable. Just because it isn't physically killing them doesn't make it better.

Depression and anxiety are actually referred to as mental illnesses [http://psychcentral.com...]. Anxiety can get as extreme as paranoid schizophrenia and the likes. In the same way a non-mental illness can also affec toen's judgement despite not directly being known for it.

Quality of life is irrelevant in both law and medicine. This is purely subjective and cannot possible be determined. Are you saying tha if someone was terminally ill and no one consented to them dying they should stay alive while one less ill and hence greater quality of life lives? This is preposterous.

Freedom of choice is also a nice joke. Anyone under the age of majority/consent of a nation has their parents decide if their machine is cut off and similar things. No one below this age, unless vegetated, can even be euthanized evne in nations where it is legal. This is ageism and thus is unfair prejudice that shouldn't exist in a civilized society's law.

Mental pain/illnes sshould ne dealth with. the misison of anyone, psychologist or phycisian, shoul,d be to cure the person by any means necessary for as log as possible against any odds. The slightest deviation from this extremist attitude and you cross a line that you really do not want to cross. Who really is worth killing and isn't? A lot of things to consider.

Spritiuality is nonexistent in medicine and legality. Please do not involve it, this is a secular debate about a law mad ein a secular state. Unles syou are specifically referring to shariah law states which al outlaw euthanasia absolutely.

Debate Round No. 3
moneystacker

Con

My opponent claims no way to verify if their will to live has gone. But my response to that is that If there is no way to verify the will to live, then they will not use euthanasia since the patient hasn't asked for it. IF they were to experience such a medial condition as you propose then they wouldn't get euthanasia since no way to be sure if person wants it. Again I point out multiple times this is an option, if your a devoted Christian chances are you will request not to have euthanasia if you live where I live in Texas where it is available. If not then you will take it, the patient must decide so if in a mental state where a choices can't be made or verified then the patient will be left alone.

His next argument is this "Another point to consider is that if we allow euthanasia for physical ailments that are incurable why don't we kill people suffering from asperger's, autism and down's syndrome? They suffer a lot with bullying, devleopmental issues and often grow up to have nightmares of their past. ADHD is treatable but also incurable. Just because it isn't physically killing them doesn't make it better."

My response: I agree mental pain can be just as bad as physical pain and technically there is a cure for that, suicide. No one can stop someone from committing suicides in fact Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people, resulting in about 4,400 deaths per year, according to the CDC. For every suicide among young people, there are at least 100 suicide attempts. Over 14 percent of high school students have considered suicide, and almost 7 percent have attempted it. http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...

Extension of response: I am not saying suicide is good what I am saying is that technically the people with these issues/diseases have a way out so they wouldn't need euthanasia. Now I am not saying "hey if your life sucks suicide" I am not advocating that I am just saying that they have a choice to suicide if they wanted to so no reason to even consider euthanasia and again the current use of Euthanasia is only used on diseases that are automatically result in death. I have ADD that is also in a way incurarble but there is no reason to suicide for it, but it would be easy to do if I wanted to. Suicide is reletivly easy, you could jump off a building, shoot yourself, stab yourself, you could even do something as simple as taking certain pills or drowning in a pool.

Extension for euthanasia on suicide: Now with the diseases I mentioned earlier like cancer you have no choice because you are surrounded by doctors and nurses so you are 24/7 monitored. Also you are strapped on a bed and probably to sick and ill to even have enough energy to commit the task. The main core reason however why euthanasia cannot be used for the things you bought up is normally used if someone is going to die anyway.

His next argument is that Depression and anxiety are actually referred to as mental illnesses [http://psychcentral.com......]. Anxiety can get as extreme as paranoid schizophrenia and the likes. In the same way a non-mental illness can also affec toen's judgment despite not directly being known for it.

I guess he is backing up his argument saying some can't judge if they want Euthanasia but I already addressed that earlier.

His net argument is about my quality of life part of the case. HE thinks I am saying quality of life improves since less sick people. Now if they had ebola which can spread that would be true since chances of others being infected would be less. But that isn't my argument anyway the point there was that one gone from cancer or whatever doesn't make a difference in quality of life, only difference would be more money left for government since off health coverage but I am not advocating that in my quality of life argument.

Clarification of my quality of life argument: What it is saying is that a doctors job is to uphold quality of life and that if the life is going to end anyway and they can't uphold the quality of life, or it will go down if they continue to live doctors have a right to use euthanasia. Also I am saying people should have a choice to live a terrible miserable few months or just pass away.

Mental pain/illnes sshould ne dealth with. the misison of anyone, psychologist or phycisian, shoul,d be to cure the person by any means necessary for as log as possible against any odds.

Response: I understand this argument but when a doctor gives up it means he can't do anything about it. IT means we have no cure or no way of stopping the death or the cancer or whatever has gotten to such a high stage no doctor can save the person.

Spritiuality is nonexistent in medicine and legality. Please do not involve it, this is a secular debate about a law mad ein a secular state. Unles syou are specifically referring to shariah law states which al outlaw euthanasia absolutely.

Response: It is existent in this debate. People can go through pain related to religion of they are Baptist and haven't gotten baptized yet and know they can't cause they are about to die, or if they are my religion apostolic and haven't gotten the holy ghost yet. They could go insane and face pain due to the realization they are going to hell if they believe in that. Also if you belie in god you believe god made medicine so again it depends on what you believe and so on. So I can include religion since this is a realistic scenario and some believe in god.

But honestly I don't care if voters or you don't count the spiritual part was a small part of my case.

Conclusion: Vote for me because most of my points were not attacked but also because of the fact I prove it is reasonable to have euthanasia as a choice. Again if you don't believe in euthanasia or you believe you can survive either by god or just from a random miracle then you don't have to take euthanasia. But one thing must be understood, that when this is offered to you that means the doctors have given up on you so you cannot excpt any help medical wise except for medicines to relive pain maybe. Just consider that when this is offered it usually is offered when there is no cure for you. I prove that this should be a choice because some don't have as much faith as others and not all can endure the massive pain.
Imperfiect

Pro

Con's entire case rests on the notion that suffering, in the physical sense, is measurable while the mental sense is not. Con then contradicts this by stating that if a person states 'I want to die' that is in and of itself evidence that they are beyond repair. The person could say ' I want to live' in the exact same condition of physical suffering and Con would definitely let them live. This indicates that while Con is partially stating that physical agony is the only factor to be taken into consideration, that a person's psychological state is also definitely an aspect to consider.

I stated that those suffering form mental illnesses or disorders of any kind often either want to die most of their life and wish they could just end it all (depressed or paranoid individuals) or alternatively have things that are so incurable and yet if they wanted to die, no reasonable psychiatrist or therapist would even begin to consider it. Con concedes this and states, quite disgustingly, that "hey these guys have the option of suicide"... I have never heard such a disgusting rebuttal for this attack on euthanasia in my life. Con is literally stating that it is absolutely correct that people would want to die and that those of the medical profession should either be providing euthanasia for those incapable of killing themselves physically or taking an apathetic stance on those who wish to commit suicide and perhaps even teach them how to do it correctly to avoid being one of the many failed attempts! This is the most outrageous claim ever... The human mind is in constant flux and anyone can enter a suicidal state at any time. The one thing that they should be certain of is that if they ever asked a nurse, doctor even those not of psychological specialisations they'd be immediately referred to a professional to encourage them to live by any means necessary. The entire concept of the medical professionals apart if there is not an unbreakable urge in every professional of the sector to make sure all of their clients live as long as possible regardless of their psychological state. To want to die is, in itself, a psychological mental illness that needs fixing after all.

Medicine is founded on the Hippocratic Oath that reads:

I will use treatments for the benefit of the ill in accordance with my ability and my judgment, but from what is to their harm and injustice I will keep them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Suicide is definitely harming oneself and the urge to do it not being stopped is an injustice to the suicidal individual seeking mental help from the medical industry. Even if someone begs you to kill them, the issue is that they want to be killed, not that they are alive.

Con then goes on to state that because the person is going to die anyway (which I already explained isn't true as all diseases that are now curable were once considered 'incurable' so there is never a true guarantee of the disease remaining incurable by the time someone would naturally die. We are all going to 'die anyway' so why do doctors cure anybody at all or even try to help them stay alive especially if they are suicidal and have just broken their leg? Seriously some people, especially athletes, go into major depression and suicide after any injury such as gold medallist Kelly Holmes [http://www.dailymail.co.uk...] who was thankfully saved by therapy and self determination but not everyone has as much of the latter.

Con's link to psychcentral supports my own viewpoint... I am not sure what he was using this for. Spirituality is not only medically and legally irrelevant but all religions loathe suicide so I have absolutely no idea why this would be a point for Con to raise.

Con has proven that if someone wants to commit suicide he would mercilessly let them die and actually encourage them to have that right and to make it as easy and painless as possible so there is no deterrence to wipe them from the face of this Earth. The actual fundamental argument of Con is that anyone who consents to suicide should either be left to do it (if physically healthy) or helped to do it (if physically unwell with a disease that happens to be presently labeled 'incurable' but for which the cure may well be found by the foreseeable end of that person's life.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
I like how a English teacher judged me recently interesting.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
In my own personal opinion, any person over the age of 18 has legal, moral, physical, and absolute control over their body. It is no one's right to tell them they cannot do something to themselves that wouldn't cause harm to other people, emotional turmoil aside. While we can intervene through talking to them and trying to persuade them to stick around, it must ultimately be left up to them, and we must respect their choice regardless of how we feel. If suicide would cause harm to others, then it should be prevented until no harm can be done outside of the sick person, such as a single mother leaving her kids to be orphaned and sent to foster homes. The children would have to be settled in a safe place before the mother could commit suicide. As far as a terminally ill person in the hospital who is suffering in agonizing pain that will only end when they breathe their last breath, why wouldn't it be saintly to give them a morphine pump button and walk out of the room for a few hours? Or pull the cord on an essentially brain dead patient? A doctor's job is not to prolong life, but to make it bearable.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
k its a 2 round debate and yea he lose conduct mark for forfeiting we will just continute
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
Can you say we agreed it was a 2 round debate but that I lose conduct mark for forfeiting?
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
OH SH*T I THOUGHT THIS WAS A 72 HOUR DEBATE I'M REALLY REALLY SORRY please
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
i based profile off what side i like debating on but i guess i should make it personal how i feel so ima do that real fast
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
okay relax lol
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
oh I got to fix that my bad was showering but yeah I meant pro as in when I debate it I am pro my bad
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
okay ignore me then.
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
On the big Issues section of your profile it states that you are Pro euthanasia just to let you know.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
moneystackerImperfiectTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's grammar was atrocious.
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
moneystackerImperfiectTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins on the argument that the role of the doctor is to extend the life of the patient, and that it is thus never acceptable for them to encourage a patient to commit suicide-- if a patient were to display a desire to die, the doctor has no place but to attempt to give the patient psychological therapy. Con might have won if it were a debate over whether or not suicide is justified, but he ultimately fails to show that it is justified for the *doctor* to assist their patient in suicide. Arguments to Pro. Forfeit ignored upon Con's request.
Vote Placed by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
moneystackerImperfiectTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G was atrocious on both sides for the most part. I am forced to give conduct to Con due to Pro's forfeit and their agreement in the comments. I was not swayed by either side in this debate, Pro tried to argue from the Sanctity of Life standpoint and Con was focused on The Right to Choose. Classic rivals that cancel each other out and I would have liked to see a broader scope. Sources go to Pro because I felt that their sources supported their argument more than Con's did.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
moneystackerImperfiectTied
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: Haha both were playing devil's advocate...okay so let's see....pro's ff largely harms his case, only able to have 2 rounds to construct and rebut cases. I feel like Pro losses (for the first time ever!) because the doctor's responsibility really didn't come out in my opinion, and con did a better job talking about how the people have the right to their lives.