Should Euthanasia be Legalized?
Let's take the case of Tony Nicklinson: http://www.channel4.com...
Look at the suffering he went through, do you consider that to be just and fair?
The topic of the debate is should euthanasia be legalized and if it is legalized doesn't that allow all cases of terminal illness up for euthanasia. Before I get started I will get the definition out of the way so no confusion occurs when I give my case, 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(1)." Let me explain why this is wrong take for an example of a terminally ill patient who is unable to speak or really communicate with others the question then is who determines whether he/she lives or dies. And even if it is determined who will be their care taker is it fair for them to choice whether the terminally ill person lives or dies. While Tony Nicklinson clearly didn't want to live who is to say that another terminally ill patient even with the suffering and hard trials wouldn't want to breathe fresh air, hear the birds sing, or feel the warm breeze. The only possible way to make euthanasia safe is to put heavy regulations to secure that it is not abused, but how the debate now stands this would be impossible.
The moral question also comes into play. Would it be right for a governmental body to allow someone to kill themselves. Murder is socially unacceptable and suicide is a murder on ones self and is viewed as morally wrong even a sin in most religions if not all. How can a government say that murder is wrong while suicide is right.
Euthanasia can stop suffering, but the possibility of it being abused and mistreated is outweighing any positives from legalizing it.
Euthanasia is a tricky and emotive subject, for obvious reasons – it’s not an easy subject with clearly defined lines of demarcation. Nonetheless, it is a political issue – especially so after what happened with Tony Nicklinson; a perfect example . The issue was also raised on Question Time as well.
It seems only right that a “right to life” must have a qualitative meaning where ‘life’ means more than biologically functioning. In that sense I think the question of whether of people have a “right to die” is a false one and those who support euthanasia should stop framing the debate this way. This isn’t about death. Death is incidental to the main issue which is the patient’s quality of life. If that is so compromised that death is the only way to seriously ameliorate suffering it’s hard to argue this option should not be available. Similarly this shows that the allowance of euthanasia is not an imposition on the commitment of the medical profession to ‘do no harm’. Realistically, doing no harm in some contexts means the final curtailment of suffering.
Euthanasia is a very slippery slope, a slope that could be horrible to everyone.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|