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

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,984 times Debate No: 67660
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I'd like to thank my opponent ahead of time for accepting this debate challenge and by accepting he agrees to the following rules and definitions.


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.
Since Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicides are the same exact thing the terms and wording may be used interchangably throughout the debate

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. (
Physician Assisted Suicided- suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information (


Hey lannan, Thank you for extending this debate opportunity to me. I look forward to an intense clash of minds in which all who observe can enjoy.
XI: Intro and Definition
I would like to begin this debate by making the clear observation that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) is NOT the same as euthanasia. In my own words PAS is self-administered death while euthanasia is the taking of another's life by the actual doctor, with of without their consent. Basically in euthanasia the doctor pulls the trigger (with or without permission by the patient) while in PAS the doctor simply supplies the gun, very different. These quotes will demonstrate what I am saying:
"Physician-Assisted Suicide is where patients with a terminal diagnosis (life-limiting disease) formally request a prescription for a fatal dose of a drug which they can administer to themselves at a time of their choosing......It is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying, to treat an unbearable situation, and is legal in two states in the U.S.A. (Oregon [Death with Dignity Act 1994] and Washington [2009]), and in Europe in The Netherlands."

"Euthanasia is when a physician or other healthcare provider does something, such as administering a known lethal dose of a drug, to deliberately kill a patient, with or without the patient’s consent. It is not legal anywhere in the U.S.A."

"Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy killing")."~Wiki: Assisted Suicide

XII: PAS is Safe and is fairly common in other countries

Many people have misconceptions about physician assisted suicide. PAS is a very safe practice, Countries which allow PAS include: Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Canada. In the U.S. these states allow PAS currently: Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Montana and Vermont. ~Wiki: Assisted Suicide. Another fear many people have about PAS is that it is unsafe and leads to family members forcing others to engage in PAS for personal gain such as inheritance. This would be a major concern if it were not for the reasonability of legislation and the opposition to PAS. What I mean by that is, the fact opposition brings attention to the possibility of abuse, special measures are taken to implement especially safe laws. Here is a sample of the legal process to apply and receive PAS:

"Several safeguards in Death with Dignity laws ensure all patients are protected, and if they wish to use the law, they're in full control of the process. These safeguards and the request process ensure there's no chance patients are coerced to hasten their deaths. The terminally ill patient:

verbally requests the medication from the physician twice; each request is separated by 15 days.

make a written request to the attending physician; the request is witnessed by two individuals who are not primary care givers or family members.

can rescind the verbal and written requests at any time.

must be able to self-administer and ingest the prescribed medication.

The law further requires... The attending physician must be licensed in the same state as the patient.

The physician's diagnosis must include a terminal illness, with six months or less to live.

The diagnosis must be certified by a consulting physician, who must also certify that the patient is mentally competent to make and communicate health care decisions.

If either physician determines that the patient's judgment is impaired, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination.

The attending physician must inform the patient of alternatives, including palliative care, hospice and pain management options.

The attending physician must request that the patient notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request.

Use of the law cannot affect the status of a patient's health or life insurance policies.

The states' departments of health enforce compliance with the law. Compliance requires physicians to report all prescriptions to the state.

Physicians and patients who comply with the law are protected from criminal prosecution. Physicians and health care systems are not obligated to participate in the Death with Dignity laws."

~ See more at:

XIII: The Moral Reason Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal

Beyond any facts I have presented I must state the moral reason for which PAS should be allowed, ultimately it comes down to the fact that people who suffer never-endingly, deserve the right to control their own life and as has been said, "Die with Dignity". People who oppose PAS often make arguments which are quite contradictory to the way in which we are supposed to treat others in the U.S.. One I often hear is, 'we cannot play god', to which I must respond, "Which one?". Not everyone believes in the same god and some lack such a concept. by rejecting the idea of PAS using this logic, are you not imposing your religious beliefs on others and is this not against the way in which we are supposed to operate in the U.S. concerning religion?

I find it wrong that people who have never experienced excruciating and continual pain, force their beliefs on those who on a daily basis do. It is very egotistical to believe that you know more than an 'expert' in pain, in essence. So these people who have never experienced such pain prevent laws from being passed which would free people from the prison of their body. A person who is burning in a fire will experience pain so vast that it is incomprehensible, and it should be absolutely morally irreprehensible to allow the continuation of such pain; what deprives one of their right to pursue happiness than something like that? Please let me be clear, if such pain occurs for just a moment, then of course they should not be allowed to end their life. And if this pain is psychological and caused by depression, then of course they should not be permitted to end their life in this name, however it is when this suffering is permanent that we must disallow its continuation. Doing otherwise should be considered a crime, not vice vera.

Thanks you for reading and considering, I end my opening statement.

Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for the timely response. Now as for the definition. If we observe the medical definition of Physician Assisted Suicide we will find the following definition, "Somewhat of a hybrid between passive and active euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide (PAS), also known as voluntary passive euthanasia." ( This means that it is voluntary Euthanasia, but just by a different name. In this debate I will be arguing that the legislation of this type of Euthanasia will lead to the legislation of other types of Euthanasia outside of Voluntary Euthanasia. Now I will warn that I will give my arguments, but may not get to all of my opponent's argument here and some of them may have to wait until the next round.
Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent.

I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. ( 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" (

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. (

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. ( 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%. (

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. (

Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, " “it is the
greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and
wrong.” (

This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society.



I think that for the overall success of this debate and for the comprehension of it by the readers, we should begin confident of what all terminology and related terminology mean, some of which haven't yet been covered. So let me take some time to explain the bigger picture.

Let's start with regular euthanasia (EUTH); EUTH is most accurately described as the taking of another's life by a doctor in order to relieve them of their chronic and terminal pains or future mental degradation. Very extreme forms of EUTH existed in the Nazi regime, where the societal unproductive, disabled in mind or body, and those of a specific race or cultural background were 'euthanized' aka murdered. The main idea being that these people are deficient and not worthy of life. The normal form of EUTH is of course much, much less extreme, usually it is simply a doctor injecting a patient with a lethal drug or cutting of their life support.

Here is where euthanasia splits into 2 different divisions. A, is active/ involuntary euthanasia where the doctor does not have any specific permission from the one being euthanized, it comes from other sources whether it be family, or Nazi regime in the past. In this case, the doctor would do something like inject the patient with a lethal drug.

The second division of EUTH, B, is passive/voluntary EUTH; where the patient specifically asks the doctor to end their life and under no other party's directive. The doctor will then: pull the plug on life support/ stop giving them medicine/ let the disease take its course.

Now we come to Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), This is where the patient explicitly asks the doctor to give them: medicine, injection...etc. which they will then inject/breath through mask/drink...etc., specifically with the patient doing the action which ends their life. I will defend that PAS is: very passive euthanasia. I believe so because in regular passive EUTH the patient doesn't even pull their own cord, it is the doctor. So in PAS all the doctor does is give them the ability to pull their own cord, which I think is better, because it gives them much more control....Keep in mind that right now, if a family member wishes, they can pull the plug on say a dying father on his last limb in the hospital. This is true in ALL U.S. states. What is really the difference between PAS and puling the plug?

Americans generally support the right to physician-assisted suicide, though the number varies depending on how the issue is framed. As of 2013 it was as high as 71% when the phrase "end the patient's life by some painless means" was used. That dropped to 51% when the phrase "commit suicide" was introduced.

But what about the physicians themselves?

According to a survey published Dec. 17 by Medscape, an online professional network and information source for physicians, 54% of doctors answered the question, "Should physician-assisted suicide be allowed?" with a yes.

click="document.location='/TheJuniorVarsityNovice/photos/album/4636/30510/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/5/4636/226693-4636-e89c3-a.jpg" alt="" />

For this survey, Medscape asked more than 21,000 physicians a list of ethical questions. More than 17,000 of them were US doctors, while 4,000 European physicians responded.

Read more:

In contention 1 my opponent gives us a truck load of facts, however even though he calls them "horrible" he never says why. He wants viewers to assume: A, that these people were simply murdered which is expressly untrue, and B, that this indicates a s but beyond that he has not provided evidence to support this suggested assumption so please do no consider this until it is properly warranted and explained. Also his source for this was labeled as an error which should be in the "opinions sections" of the website:

In contention 2 my opponent states that passing laws allowing any form of EUTH leads to massive and involuntary euthanasia however I would actually classify this claim under the Slippery-Slope fallacy because there have only been facts presented thus far, yet these facts alone do not indicate that passive EUTH has lead to involuntary EUTH; he may have stated that but that doesn't make it true. For instance he stated that strict laws were passed supported by medical associations in 1987 and less so in 2001. These are neat facts but that's is all they are, they don't imply actual cause and effect. Please remember that Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary proof!

click="document.location='/TheJuniorVarsityNovice/photos/album/4636/30510/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/5/4636/226693-4636-u9ags-a.jpg" alt="" />

In contention 3 my opponent basically states that the sickly just need to take ownership and get over their pain. I state that most people who are terminally ill aren't irrational they are simply regular people who are in constant and unbearable pain, with thoughts still intact. Please provide evidence stating that all people who are chronically ill are irrational, only then can we accept contention 3.

Here are quotes which attack statements and assumptions made during the last round:

"There is no evidence demonstrating that the Netherlands has a greater rate of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia than other Western countries. Indeed, there is a significant amount of evidence demonstrating the prevalence of both voluntary and involuntary active euthanasia in various jurisdictions in which euthanasia has not been legalized, looking at criminal prosecutions, admissions by doctors and anonymous surveys of medical professionals."
-Penney Lewis, LLM, Reader in Law at the School of Law and Centre of Medical Ethics at Kings College, stated in a Spring 2007 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: article titled "The Empirical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia"

Basically there is evidence that the percent of involuntary EUTH is less is the same in countries without legislation on the matter and as will be shown next, the legislation has actually decreased the amount of involuntary EUTH

"look to the Netherlands, where they’ve had progressive laws on assisted dying for over a decade now. In 2005, a study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient’s explicit permission. You might argue that that’s 0.4 percent too many, but get this: A 1991 report—written a decade before euthanasia was legalized—put the number at 0.8 percent. In other words, giving a nationwide go-ahead for doctors to legally end their patient’s lives actually halved the number of unwanted deaths.

But hey, that’s just Holland, right? They do things differently there. Doctors in a less-hippie-liberal culture would never kill off patients without their consent, right? Well think again. In Britain, a 2012 study discovered that as many as 57,000 patients each year die without being told that efforts to keep them alive have been stopped. Instead, they’re just shoved onto a “death pathway” designed to alleviate suffering without ever being told. So basically, doctors in the UK are already practicing euthanasia—only without any of the legal framework to check abuses that would come from legalizing it." -

"In 2005, of all deaths in the Netherlands, 1.7% were the result of euthanasia and 0.1% were the result of physician-assisted suicide. These percentages were significantly lower than those in 2001, when 2.6% of all deaths resulted from euthanasia and 0.2% from assisted suicide." -Agnes van der Heide, MD, PhD, Senior Researcher in the Department of Public Health at Erasmus University

As far as the Hyppocratic Oath, the problem arises when "Do no harm" is said, however it does more harm to let live in these cases
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for being patient for my response time. I will readdress his doctor's opinion's on PAS in my second contention.
Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia without consent.

My opponent does not actually refute my argument, but rather attacks the validity of my sources. He states that my ncbi source in C1 is a mere opinion, so it doesn't matter, right? Wrong, if we just so happen to look at the bottom and see his sources we can see a trememdous amount of creditable sources that he has site. Okay so what, he has valid sources? Well if we observe our J. Pereira we can see that he is the author of several medical papers and is a very creditable source. ( Secondly, he isn't the only source that I use in my argument that I've made last round. I've made two as this was the second article. (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) He also states that my argumentation was false, but this is incorrect as the Euthanasias without consent are that of the doctor terminating the person's life when they do not wish it to end. This simply mirrors that of putting a baby into a microwave and "drying them off." It's not correct. Plus I've showed that even with it legal we can see that there is still a black market for euthanasia so it does not solve that problem what-so-ever.

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 woke up to be on the O’Rielily Show. ( 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%. (

Contention 2: Slippery Slope argument.

My opponent only discounts my argument as a slippery slope, but states that it doesn't have any support claims, but the two examples that he put up on petistools were the examples I used and I showed that their pregresssion has lead to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. It all started with legalizing PAS and is happening in other parts of the World. Even the US. Just like in Belgium now, people are able to euthanize children, which I had brought up last round. You can see how this is becoming socially acceptable as the numbers and the rates of euthanasias are increasing and in some cases doubling. The cases of Euthanasia in both Belgium and Neatherlands have doubled and skyrocketed since they had been able to legalize it and this is proof of this becoming a norm.

There is plenty of information on euthanasia avaliable as several European nations have been doing this for years.

Now once again, I understand that Pro is against involuntary euthanasia, but the fact is that I have show that by supporting this will lead to the fact of it getting legalized as it has led to the ability for children to be
euthanized by the word of their parents in Belgium in 2009. So I just extend my arguments across the board.
I also extend my moral decay argument.
Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]:
  • 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide
  • 31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide
  • 21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide
  • 5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicide

Physician Characteristics:

  • 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide
  • Physicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South


Contention 3: Self-Ownership and sickness

My opponent here only quotes about my entire third Contention says I'm wrong and that's it. He doesn't refute it or anything and because of that I extend it across.


Hello everyone, Let's rap up....

Contention 1

A.) Contention 1 does an incredible job of stating facts, these facts include: #of euthanizations done without written or explicit consent and # of all deaths defined as euthanization. The facts that he lists all apply to either The Netherlands or Belgium as can be noted by looking at his citation, some may even be statistics from combining both countries data. There is a problem with his layout though. The problem being that contention 1 isnt an argument. It is a conglomeration of unrelated facts, the problem being not, that the facts are a conglomeration, but that these facts are not tied together to form any argument, they are simply facts, which without stated reason he calls "horrible". They have no context, no stated date for each fact, or indications as to which fact relates to which country. The citation in contention 1 of his argument indicates that all facts presented before it apply to Belgium and The Netherlands however at one point he simply says, "1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia", to which I must respond, which nation, Belgium or The Netherlands? The facts are all over the place and are inconsistent as to who and when they partain.

On another note, I must correct an improper assumption which is being promoted. That assumption being that EUTH without consent means, EUTH against the person's will. That would be plain murder, what this means is that the euthanization was done without explicit written legal consent. These people indicate in some manner that they wish to end their life. As for the ones that were unreported, this is because most of the doctors who preformed them didn't consider them to be acts of EUTH.

B.) Now I will argue against claims made in Lannan's last speech. Firstly Let me state that I did not simply attack the validity of his sources, the source bit was simply an add-on which I will readdress momentarily. I refuted Lannan's contention 1 by stating that there is no real argument to refute save possibly an assumption that EUTH without consent means EUTH against the patients' will, which I have already covered. As I have said, There is no argument in contention 1, there is only a conglomeration of facts which do not logically relate to one another. This relates to contention 2 so you will see what I mean when I discuss logical fallacies later on.

Now I would like to talk about my opponents author in contention 1, J. pereira. Right off the bat, lets talk about that list of credible studies which J. takes a part in. Just because he is in credible studies does not mean that he is in general credible, in how many of those studies was he the main author/ researcher. Secondly, just because he is an expert in one field of study, does that imply that he is an expert in the field of The Slippery-Slope of PAS? certainly not. I'll let the audience know that J. is a Chemical Biotech patent attorney with a PhD in genetics. So how is he a credible source? -

Now I'll move onto Mrs.Terri Schiavo. Here is your claim:

"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 woke up"

I would like to let everyone know that Mrs. Terri Schiavo never recovered from her vegetative state of 13 years. Her tubes were removed after a very, and I mean very long series of legal/judicial and executive events to determine whether or not to remove her feeding tubes took place. In the end the courts overruled George Bush's legislation to keep her alive and her feeding tubes were pulled, she never showed any sign of recovery and died a few days later. The woman you reference who recovered from her unresponsive state, of 70 days, was a woman named a Mrs. Kate Adamson in 1995. She had her tubes pulled in 2005 and immediately afterward began to recover, They plugged her back in and she fully recovered, she lives to this day. My question is, even if you were right, how would this hurt my case? if anything the events of Kate Adamson confirm the resolution. Kate was in a completely unresponsive state and was unable to communicate in any form or fashion. Now think about this. If you were stuck in a vegetative state fully aware for the rest of your life, would you really want to be alive, trapped in the cage of your body? If it were me I would be inwardly begging for Physician Assisted Suicide or the like.

Contention 2, Oh the fallacies

My opponent crafts this arguments soley on three things: an assumption, the 'post HOC' fallacy and the 'Slippery Slope' fallacy.

The Slippery Slope fallacy:

Post HOC fallacy:

Here are some facts my opponent uses to craft his argument:

a.) The definition of euthinasia at one point simply meant killing people with terminal illness while now it means a painless death to help the terminally ill.
b.) The number of people being euthanized in one or two countries has dramatically increased
c.) One medical assosiation supported very strict definitions of euthinasia and later supported less strict definitions

Please review the Post HOC fallacy, in any of these facts does it really follow that b was caused by a? in other words, does the fact that a definition has changed or that one medical association supported less criminally strict definitions of EUTH really imply that the changes were the result of decreasing moral attitudes? Could it likely be the result of anything else? Yes, and there has been no concrete proofs, inductive nor deductive reasoning's applied to suggest anything else. Please note that these are the result of an unfounded assumption. As for b the same applies because to me all b means is that the Belgians are finally giving people their right to death with dignity not introduced some initiative to begin the genocide of the weak and sick.

Here are some common examples of the slippery slope fallacy:

"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"

"The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."

"You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."

"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will
be burning all the books!"

"Once we start letting homosexuals get married, soon enough we'll be allowing sons to marry their fathers and dogs to marry monkeys!"

Now here is a quote from my opponent's speech:

"It all started with legalizing PAS, people are able to euthanize children [soon enough involuntary EUTH will be legal and rampant]"

Contention 3

"My opponent here only quotes about my entire third Contention says I'm wrong and that's it. He doesn't refute it or anything and because of that I extend it across."

My opponent doesn't think that I have refuted contention 3 I will now refute that claim by showing how I have indeed refuted his third contention...refute... (had to throw it in there one more time)

Premise: "In contention 3 my opponent basically states that the sickly just need to take ownership and get over their pain. I state that most people who are terminally ill aren't irrational they are simply regular people who are in constant and unbearable pain"

Warrant: you haven't supported your own claim with evidence so you must "provide evidence stating that all people who are chronically ill are irrational, only then can we accept contention 3."

Premise + warrant in opposition of a claim = refutation

Studies and evidence

I'm running out out space so i'll make this quick. Here I refute Lannan's round 3 studies on professional PAS opinions. His came from
2008 from
2k doctors in one medical assosiation. Mine from 21k doctors in dec 2014 internationally. Clearly my evidence has been consistently better and my
argumentation aswell.

Thank you for reading

Debate Round No. 3


Contention 1: Unreported and Euthanasia without one's consent.

A) My opponent is mistaken. Euthanasia without one's consent does include BOTH Non Voluntary Euthanasia and Involunatary Euthanasia. So my opponent is indeed incorrect at that point. The 1.7% is for the Dutch. There is reason for these facts though. It goes to show just how bad the way things are in these foreign nations that have legalized euthanasia and they have lead to these types of arguments. It is a simple impact to show just show bad it is when you legalize euthanasia and even with the proper safeguards we can see that it leads to Non Voluntary Euthanizing of children as seen in boht the Neatherlands and Beligium it may seem bogus, but facts speak for themselves. We can see that even if the US legalizes we will follow soon.

B) J. Pereira is a valid source as he is a biotech which means that he is an expert in the feild as he actually understands how euthanasia works and considering that he has a PhD in genetics he once again knows how exactly this works making this a better source and concidering that I have provided multiple sources here for this we can still see that's it's valid as my opponent hasn't actually provided a source to show that it's valid. Even if you do not take J Pereira as a valid source he still had several soveral sources that show that the source is creditable from within the reserch that he has done.

When it came to Terri Schiavo she did indeed recover. As a matter of fact here is a video showing that she was a fully responsive and functional human being before euthanasia took it's full effect and killed her. (

Contention 2: Slippery SLope Argument.

I will bring this up as I have before. THis is the name of the argument given to it by the author of the argument. The person is Ezekiel Emmanuel who is a well known American bioethicist who has come out with this theory. In this novel, The Ends of Human Life, he goes into an argument against Euthanasia where he uses AIDs patients as an example. Where he not only blatently attacked euthanasia as murder, but as morally unjustified.

"To know whether it is ethical to turn off the respirator for a quadriplegic patient requires conceptions of personal identity, a worthy human life, murder and suicide; to know how much information a doctor must provide a cancer patient to obtain proper informed consent for an experimental therapy requires conceptions of autonomy, coercion and the public good and how to balance these values; to know whether to break the AIDS patient’s confidentiality and inform his wife requires a framework for weighing the relative importance of competing individual rights as well as the public good."

As we can see my opponent doesn't actually refute any of my arguments here as he only refute's the argument as a fallacy due to a misconception of it's name. So once more I extend it all the way across the board.

Contention 3: Self-Ownership and sickness.

Okay so sorry if I didn't see two sentences as a refutation of 3 valid points. However it's true, because we can see that the loss of just one person is felt by the community and we can see that the collective socity needs the person more than not and it's really selfish if that one person decides to kill themselves without thinking of the collective group as a whole. My opponent also dropped a very key point and that was the self-dettermination argument that they should only kill themselves if they're in the right state of mind, but if you want to kill yourself you are in the wrong state of mind. He's also dropped palliative specialist argument showing that the numbers of people seeing them has dropped significantly.

Thank you and please vote Con.


No Round, As Required in The Terms of Agreement.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
The resolution required that PRO furnish reasons why the federal government should legalize physician assisted suicide. Off the bat, this is police power issue, meaning that it's a state issue, meaning that there is an inherent issue of federalism that PRO will fail to overcome. Moreover, the fact that PAS is legal in other countries does not mean that it should be legalized in the US. That has no impact on the resolution. PRO's second cont. was better, but rife with spelling and grammatical errors and logically incoherent. He was essentially preemptively rebutting arguments against PAS from religion and assuming the validity of the conclusion he was attempting to draw the entire time.

CON's first contention did not directly impact the resolution. CON's second argument did impact the resolution, but only marginally, insofar as he is arguing that permitting PAS opens the door to a parade of horribles. This is a risky form of argumentation, but it's better than preemptively rebutting, as PRO did in his second contention. CON's third contention didn't make a lot of sense either. The only compelling argument so far is that PAS opens the door to other bad things.

The JV Novice's arguments were very, very elementary. So were Lannan's, but at least Lannan had a single argument that directly did what he was supposed to do. That is why he takes the win. PRO should really edit his rounds before he posts them. Both should consider how, conceptually, they can write arguments that actually impact the resolution.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
Apparently the pictures decided to disappear after being posted in my argument, if interested here they are, in order:
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I give conduct to CON because of PRO's annoying formatting, and his misuse of Roman numerals, and spelling and grammar to CON (which I am reluctant to do) because of PRO's numerous spelling and grammatical errors throughout his case. There was quite a gap between his and CON's. PRO's case is exceptionally weak, and while there were opportunities for improvement in CON's case, as between both, his was far stronger. See comments for further explanation.