The Instigator
DragonInk101
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Absentia
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should Assisted Suicide Be Legal?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 738 times Debate No: 72218
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

DragonInk101

Pro

This debate is about whether or not assisted suicide should be legalized. For this debate, I will be for assisted suicide being legalized. The debate will be divided into 5 rounds:

First Round: Acceptance
Second Round: Introduction
Third Round: Rebuttal
Fourth Round: Cross-Examination
Fifth Round: Conclusion

Please note, this is in fact my first debate on this, so if I mess something else, that's why.
Absentia

Con

I accept.

This too is my first debate. Good luck my friend.
Debate Round No. 1
DragonInk101

Pro

First off, let's talk about the people who are viable for something like this. This will really effect people who have been hospitalized and are unable to live a full life as a normal person for one reason or another. Take for example someone who has had an incident where they are unable to move, and are in constant pain. Of course there are procedures that doctors can take to reduce the pain, due to the fact that that is their job, being to make them as comfortable as possible, but that can only go so far. You can only give someone so much medication like morphine to reduce pain without killing them, still causing the victim to be suffering. One thing that is extremely frowned upon by most is torture of enemy soldiers to get information, but is this really different from that? The patient is being forced to be submitted to constant pain whether they like it or not. It seems extremely similar. So why is it that assisted suicide is not an option to end this? One major thing about someone being hospitalized is the effect on the friends and families. Seeing your loved one in constant pain and misery for the rest of their life is something no one likes, and of course, can leads to chronic depression. Ending this pain and suffering will of course be sad for the family, as they did just lose their loved ones, but when looking at the big picture, it is the best option. Not only will it end this constant state of misery that the patient is in, but will also help those who are connected, as they are in a better place. Their spirit is in a better place, and can finally rest for once. Is it really justified to deny a human of this option and keep them in constant pain? Of course not. Another point I would like to bring up is the fact that the use of materials that are spent on keeping the patient alive. If the patient no longer wants to be of this world, and would rather end whatever life they have right now, due to the fact that assisted suicide is illegal, resources like medicine, saline and so on, are being wasted, and could be used to treat more patients, and have a larger supply of resources in case of a major emergency.
Absentia

Con

Those are some good points, but I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on a few things.

Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent.

I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1] Approximately 900 euthanasias a year are done without consent and a top that 50% of euthanasizations are done unreportively. In 2005, it was reported that about 1.7% of the Beligium's deaths was caused by Euthanasia, a grand total of 2,410 people. Meaning that 1 out of every 5 people who are euthanasized are done so without consent. [2] Another study in Belgium reported that 32% were being preformed there without consent.

Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument

Keown gave the slippery slope argument in 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. The first example I would like to show is that of the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association created a 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.” Although, in 2001, they supported a brand new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. [3] Their 2001 law has also permitted children from ages 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent even if the child doesn't wish to be euthanized! [4]

The euthanasias in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have 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" [5]

You are also given the healing doctor a killing role. 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. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. Escentially this kinda makes the doctors have the same type of fear as those who are scared of clowns.


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

[7] and [8]

Contention 3: Self Ownership

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)

One can see that 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 had 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%. [9]

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. [10]


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.” [11]

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 has 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.

With that I'll pass the batton back to my opponent and now await his rebuttles.

Debate Round No. 2
DragonInk101

Pro

DragonInk101 forfeited this round.
Absentia

Con

Absentia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
DragonInk101

Pro

DragonInk101 forfeited this round.
Absentia

Con

Absentia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
DragonInk101

Pro

DragonInk101 forfeited this round.
Absentia

Con

Absentia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by amazinfly 1 year ago
amazinfly
I would like to accept the debate.

I am also new to this debating forum yet I have an active brain that needs fulfilling offload of complex thinking!.
Posted by amazinfly 1 year ago
amazinfly
I would like to accept the debate.

I am also new to this debating forum yet I have an active brain that needs fulfilling offload of complex thinking!.
Posted by StalinIncarnate 1 year ago
StalinIncarnate
Con, Next Time Source In Debate Rounds, not in Comment Section. Makes it less confusing, and It looks like a Few broke.
Posted by DragonInk101 1 year ago
DragonInk101
I think so
Posted by Absentia 1 year ago
Absentia
Did I do it right?
Posted by Absentia 1 year ago
Absentia
Round 2 Sourcing
1. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
2. ( 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.) )
3. (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)
4. (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)
5. (http://www.all.org...)
6. (http://www.all.org...)
7. (To Die, to Sleep: US Physicians' Religious and Other Objections to Physician-Assisted Suicide, Terminal Sedation, and Withdrawal of Life Support" (Source: Farr A. Curlin, MD)
8. (http://euthanasia.procon.org...)
9. (http://www.nysrighttolife.org...)
10. (http://www.vatican.va...)
11. ( http://www.bmj.com...)
Posted by Absentia 1 year ago
Absentia
That's okay. We all are.
Posted by DragonInk101 1 year ago
DragonInk101
I'm new to this...
Posted by Absentia 1 year ago
Absentia
I doubt it. Everything is debatable. If you really want to I can debate that the sky is not blue and what not. Most of it is just studies and sources to back up the points that you've made. Though I don't know why there's a cross-ex in R4 and not R3.
Posted by DragonInk101 1 year ago
DragonInk101
I just feel like your going to have these super unbeatable points
No votes have been placed for this debate.