The Instigator
KnoxKane0529
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BlackPanther
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should doctors prioritize the prolonging of life over the quality of that life.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 709 times Debate No: 55959
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

KnoxKane0529

Con

I believe it is a doctor's duty to look out for their patient in every way other than medical. that includes emotionally, and mentally. if a patient can never return to their normal lifestyle or even a life at all after a tragic mishap, for example, a world-famous runner gets injured in an accident and is hence amputated as treatment, what is the point of keeping that patient alive? instead of leading that patient into an emotional slaughterhouse after recovery, rather it is that Doctor's job to end any type of suffering the patient has or will endure.
BlackPanther

Pro

You cannot objectively measure the quality of someone's life.

You can judge their 'quality of life' in terms of wage bracket and the financial value of their assets but you cannot measure the quality of their life because quality, by its very definition, is qualitative and not quantitative.

Another issue is the notion that there is ever a situation of no return. there have been occasions of 'miracles' where what was originally perceived as incurable is either a false diagnosis or found to be curable by discovery later on that the person could only realize and be treated for if they'd lived long enough for this to be found out.

Aside from this, euthanasia is prone to corruption from families where there is dispute between the next of kin and the individual on the bed. who want waste their money on this person's well-being if they happen to not like them? Euthanasia bills are often based around the next of kin having final say. Sometimes friends are closer to the individual than the next of kin but if the next of kin were to say 'no' to the person living then even if the friend would be willing to fund it the euthanasia law declares that person to be deserving of death.

On top of this, the moral standpoint of a doctor revolves around the Hippocratic Oath [http://www.nlm.nih.gov...]:

"I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate."

In other words, if they ever contribute to the taking of one's life, they are contradicting the very Oath on which their entire morality is supposed to be based. Gods and goddesses are seen as moral authority.
Debate Round No. 1
KnoxKane0529

Con

KnoxKane0529 forfeited this round.
BlackPanther

Pro

BlackPanther forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
KnoxKane0529

Con

KnoxKane0529 forfeited this round.
BlackPanther

Pro

BlackPanther forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.