The Instigator
KILLUMINATI
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,659 times Debate No: 22583
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

KILLUMINATI

Con

I have not read much about this but I am against suicide so I will be con....

This is cut and paste from debatepedia to show more about this subject if you do not know facts about it. http://debatepedia.idebate.org...
Assisted Suicide, also called Voluntary Euthanasia, is currently a contentious issue in many countries. The question in the debate is this: if a terminally ill person decides that they wish to end their life, is it acceptable for others to assist them? This would normally take the form of a doctor administering a lethal injection, which would end their life painlessly. A clear distinction must be made with involuntary euthanasia, by which someone is ‘put down' against their wishes, and which is simply murder by another name.

Euthanasia or assisted suicide is illegal in most countries around the world. In the United States, Dr Jack Kervorkian – nicknamed ‘Doctor Death' for his actions beliefs – has campaigned for a change in the law for many years, and assisted in the suicide of at least 45 people. He was found guilty of second degree murder and imprisoned in 1999 after a widely publicized trial. He was released on June 1, 2007, on parole due to good behavior. Those that practice euthanasia continue to risk charges of murder and prison sentences. However, in Oregon and California, state legislation has been passed to allow for euthanasia in special circumstances and within a heavy regulatory framework in which third party ethicists attempt to ensure the appropriateness of euthanasia cases.

Euthanasia is legal in a few modern democracies: the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland. In the Netherlands, voluntary euthanasia has been legal since 1983, with some 3,000 people requesting it each year. In Australia, assisted suicide was legalised in the Northern Territory with the backing of a substantial majority of the local population, but was then overthrown by the Federal Senate before anyone could actually use the new law.

I am against it because 1.it is suicide 2.it would be hard the persons family3.there may be a cure found to save the persons life 4.it is a moral duty to attempt to prevent suicide in general euthanasia too.

I just want to shed some light on this issue. It is not discussed much as far as I can tell so maybe this debate will educate us.

THX
imabench

Pro

"Dr Jack Kervorkian.... was found guilty of second degree murder and imprisoned in 1999 after a widely publicized trial."
That wasnt because the US forbids Euthanasia though, the reason he was put on trial was because he was doing all of these operations without a valid Medical License.....

"He was released on June 1, 2007, on parole due to good behavior."
And also because he is dying of Hepatitis C....
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Those that practice euthanasia continue to risk charges of murder and prison sentences."
Not necessarily, Dr Death as you mentioned above wasnt arrested for violating anti-euthanasia or doing these operations against the will of the patient, he was convicted because with a suspended medical license he wasnt allowed to posses certain materials that he ended up using in the euthanasia operations. Other doctors who perform Euthanasia dont risk going to jail for murder because in most of the US the worst thing that Euthanasia can be qualified as is homicide, which in the US under physician assisted suicide doesnt carry a criminal sentence.

Pro's reasons for why Euthanasia should not be allowed
1.it is suicide
2.it would be hard the persons family
3.there may be a cure found to save the persons life
4.it is a moral duty to attempt to prevent suicide in general euthanasia too.

- 1 - Suicide
Suicide isnt illegal and in the case of euthanasia it is done only to prevent further pain and suffering of hospitalized individuals by a ravaging disease whose odds of recovering are 0%.

- 2 - Their family
Death is hard on any family no matter what form it is in. However Euthanasia is done to spare the loved one from any more inevitable and unnecessary pain or suffering which can be justified if the pain is severe enough and it is accepted that nothing can be done.

- 3 - A cure could be found
We can all hope and dream that one day a magical pill would come that could stop Cancerous tumors or brain diseases in their tracks, but the reality is that every day thousands of people die from cancer or mental illnesses or other diseases and cures are still years away. People who undergo Euthanasia are often at the point where they have a matter of days left, in which case the disease or ailment they are suffering from has progressed so much so that nothing can be done in time. Even if a cure does come, for people who can be qualified for euthanasia its already too late for them.

- 4 - Moral duty to prevent suicide
Normally it is our moral duty to prevent someone from committing suicide, but in Euthanasia that same moral obligation is at odds with another moral obligation. It is also our moral duty to make sure that people dont have to go through unnecessary pain and suffering, and in the cases of Euthanasia that pain and suffering is very extensive, harsh, and unending. Euthanasia is a conflict of moral duties, but preventing someone from taking their own life and ending on their own terms compared to being forced to suffer in agony for longer than they have to supersedes that moral obligation.

Moral wise its "Prevent one from committing gentle suicide" vs "Preventing one from unnecessary pain and harm that is unending and will not go away." While im not here to say that the latter is better, the point is that from a moral standpoint Euthanasia is a stalemate/quagmire

It is for these reasons that Euthanasia should be legal. Suicide is not illegal and it is only done in extreme circumstances by professionals. It is only used on people who are far too ill from a deadly and ravaging disease that puts them through extensive pain. It then painlessly saves that person from unavoidable and unnecessary suffering that they would have otherwise have to have endured for no reason.
Debate Round No. 1
KILLUMINATI

Con

Thx to my opponent for accepting this debate....

The act of euthanasia, whether active or passive is unethical and morally wrong. Euthanasia is dangerous, placing vulnerable people at risk of euthanasia being available for people who are not "terminally ill." When the prohibition against taking life is lifted and death becomes a choice, then this liberty will not be limited to the terminally ill. Factors such as health care cost containment, caregiver convenience, and economic priority can intrude into the decision-making process.

***Let us define what the differences between euthanasia and assisted suicide.....***

One way to distinguish them is to look at the last act – the act without which death would not occur.

Using this distinction, if a third party performs the last act that intentionally causes a patient's death, euthanasia has occurred. For example, giving a patient a lethal injection or putting a plastic bag over her head to suffocate her would be considered euthanasia.

On the other hand, if the person who dies performs the last act, assisted suicide has taken place. Thus it would be assisted suicide if a person swallows an overdose of drugs that has been provided by a doctor for the purpose of causing death. It would also be assisted suicide if a patient pushes a switch to trigger a fatal injection after the doctor has inserted an intravenous needle into the patient's vein.
http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...

***Dr. Jack Kevorkian***
My opponent stated that "wasnt because the US forbids Euthanasia though, the reason he was put on trial was because he was doing all of these operations without a valid Medical License" which is incorrect.....
Because 's license to practice medicine had been revoked eight years previously, he was not legally allowed to possess the controlled substance. That is why he was charged with delivery of a controlled substance.

On March 26, 1999, Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder and the delivery of a controlled substance (administering the lethal injection to Thomas Youk). Because Kevorkian's license to practice medicine had been revoked eight years previously, he was not legally allowed to possess the controlled substance. As homicide law is relatively fixed and routine, this trial was markedly different from earlier ones that involved an area of law in flux (assisted suicide).

"Those that practice euthanasia continue to risk charges of murder and prison sentences."

Not necessarily is why I stated "risk"
"To risk charges of murder and prison sentences."

***MY reasons why Euthanasia should not be allowed***
1.It is suicide and suicide is wrong** my opponent said "Suicide isnt illegal and in the case of euthanasia it is done only to prevent further pain and suffering"

The intention of euthanasia may be to prevent further pain however in 1995, Dr. Pieter Admiraal, who has practiced euthanasia in the Netherlands for years, warned of the risk of failure associated with assisted suicide. After explaining the preparations that must be made for an assisted suicide death, he wrote: "Research has discovered that complications are common in assisted suicide, and physicians often have to finish the patient off with a lethal injection.
The Royal Dutch Medical Association recommends that a doctor be present when euthanasia is attempted."

(1)Patients may be unable to take the full medication and may wake from a self-induced coma.
(2)Patients with neurologic illnesses may have problems with swallowing or using their hands.
(3)Barbiturates can cause extreme gasping and muscle spasms can occur.
(4)While losing consciousness, a person can vomit and then inhale the vomit.
(5)Panic, feelings of terror and assaultive behavior may take place from the drug-induced confusion.

Advocates of assisted suicide know that having it legalised is only the first step toward general acceptance. When the public learn of the various complications and not-so-good deaths that will inevitably occur, they will be less reluctant to accept euthanasia.
http://www.life.org.nz...

(1)Euthanasia would not only be for people who are "terminally ill"
(2)Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment
(3)Euthanasia will become non-voluntary
(4)Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life
http://www.euthanasia.com...

2.It would be hard the persons family**my opponent stated "Death is hard on any family no matter what form it is in. However Euthanasia is done to spare the loved one from any more inevitable and unnecessary pain"
I agree to a certain extent with my opponent death is hard on the family no matter what form. But as shown above "sparing unnecessary pain" may be the intention but may not be true.

In his book Death as a Salesman - What's Wrong with Assisted Suicide, anti-euthanasia activist Brian Johnston says:
If assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia were legal and readily available, opponents are concerned that those who are chronically or terminally ill and the elderly, might feel obligated to opt for death, so as not to be a burden on relatives or other caregivers.

Family members may not all agree that it is the best course of action for a loved one to choose euthanasia, causing conflict and a possible family split.
Example Terri Schiavo: http://www.terrisfight.org...

3.There may be a cure found to save the persons life**my opponent stated "People who undergo Euthanasia are often at the point where they have a matter of days left"
This is true but with painkillers we can make the persons last days comfortable and let death take its course.

4.It is a moral duty to attempt to prevent suicide in general euthanasia too.**my opponent stated "Normally it is our moral duty to prevent someone from committing suicide, but in Euthanasia that same moral obligation is at odds with another moral obligation. It is also our moral duty to make sure that people dont have to go through unnecessary pain and suffering, and in the cases of Euthanasia that pain and suffering is very extensive, harsh, and unending. Euthanasia is a conflict of moral duties, but preventing someone from taking their own life and ending on their own terms compared to being forced to suffer in agony for longer than they have to supersedes that moral obligation. "

When performing euthanasia, no matter the intentions, someone still dies. One side argues that there is no moral distinction between letting die and killing someone because the action's result is the same. If letting a person die is morally permissible then killing someone is also, and vice versa.

If we, as a society, decide that the value of life is entirely based on the level of happiness vs. suffering that one experiences, then it seems to make sense that we should allow poor people to die as well. Of course, very few people will seriously entertain such a notion and this will likely sound insane to most people. The truth is, however, that if we don't ground our morals in a foundation that makes sense, then there will be more creeping immorality that might blindside us. If we don't solidly proclaim that life has inherent value no matter what degree of suffering one might experience, then we are possibly opening ourselves up to actions that currently sound inhumane but might sound normal to majorities of people in the future.

Life is sacred and we should always seek to protect life and allow people to live until they die of natural causes. When we keep in mind the sanctity of life, there should always be personal dignity in life no matter how tough it gets.
http://www.life.org.nz...
imabench

Pro

"When the prohibition against taking life is lifted and death becomes a choice, then this liberty will not be limited to the terminally ill"
Do you have any evidence to actually support this? Euthanasia could become legal but still be limited to those who are terminally ill, require a doctors approval, and require a doctor to actually carry it out. If Euthanasia becomes legal it doesnt mean that there will be a "do it yourself" kit in supermarkets where people can kill themselves simply on a whim, Euthanasia would still be highly restricted since laws that already allow it already severely restrict its use

"For example, giving a patient a lethal injection or putting a plastic bag over her head to suffocate her would be considered euthanasia"
You have a sorely misguided perception of what Euthanasia is my friend.
"euthanasia means the act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from an incurable and distressing disease"
http://www.spandan.com...

Euthanasia is meant to be painless, so the idea that putting a bag over someones head is a form of Euthanasia is severely misguided.

"Those that practice euthanasia continue to risk charges of murder and prison sentences. Not necessarily is why I stated "risk" "
So then you agree that doctors who practice Euthanasia are NOT at a large risk of being accused of murder.....

- 1 - Suicide isnt wrong
"It is suicide and suicide is wrong"
Saying that suicide is wrong and not saying why doesnt make it wrong, give an argument for why its wrong. I argued how in scenarios of preventing prolonged and unnecessary pain that euthanasia could be seen as the morally correct choice to put a person out of their misery if there is no hope and no need for them to suffer any more than they should.

"Research has discovered that complications are common in assisted suicide,"
Do you have evidence to suggest how it is common? If something commonly happens then it would have to happen alt least 50% of the time, but studies I found incuding the one you are using says that complications occur way south of 50%,

"complications and problems with completion occurred in 3 percent (in assisted suicide) and 6 percent of cases of euthanasia"
http://www.nejm.org...

Complications about Euthanasia are very low and most complications come due to dosage issues, thats really it. Apart from that these complications are almost always not major and do not leave patients in worse condition than before. So Euthanasia almost always goes off without a hitch and when it does it doesnt cause horrible side effects...

"(1)Patients may be unable to take the full medication and may wake from a self-induced coma."
If its self induced then that means they tried to induce it, not a licensed doctor or a physician who actually knows what they are doing.

"(2)Patients with neurologic illnesses may have problems with swallowing or using their hands."
Not all Euthanasia comes in the form pills though. They come in many forms and people dont have to do it themselves if they arent capable.

"(3)Barbiturates can cause extreme gasping and muscle spasms can occur."
Your own source says that this only happens when OVERDOSES of barbiturates are given
http://www.debate.org...

"(4)While losing consciousness, a person can vomit and then inhale the vomit."
And how often does this occur in Euthanasia cases? Im guessing it would be somewhere south of 3% out of all cases. Also your own source says that this also only happens when overdoses of Barbiturates are given to the patient.

"(5)Panic, feelings of terror and assaultive behavior may take place from the drug-induced confusion."
Seeing as how we dont know how often this happens either ill go out on a limb and guess this doesnt happen much either and could be solved by giving the patient a sedative before the operation to calm them.

For the record, once again the Con's own source says this only occurs when overdoses of Barbiturates are given.

" When the public learn of the various complications and not-so-good deaths that will inevitably occur, they will be less reluctant to accept euthanasia."
The link that you are copy pasting your arguments from leaves out the conclusion that complications only happen in about 7% of cases

- 2 - Hard on a persons family
"I agree to a certain extent with my opponent death is hard on the family no matter what form. But as shown above "sparing unnecessary pain" may be the intention but may not be true."
What you mean to say is that sparing unnecessary pain may be the intention but might still happen in less than 7% of all cases of Euthanasia......

" those who are chronically or terminally ill and the elderly, might feel obligated to opt for death, so as not to be a burden on relatives or other caregivers."
Euthanasia will always be a choice for people but it is always up to the doctor or physician who administers it if that person is justified to undergo being euthanized or not. Doctors do not have to Euthanize people if they dont want to and they have the right to try to talk them out of it and even refuse to do it.

"Family members may not all agree that it is the best course of action for a loved one to choose euthanasia, causing conflict and a possible family split."
That only happens when the person isnt capable of deciding for themselves or saying whether or not they want to live or not. At that point it becomes non-voluntary (which is way different than involuntary) euthanasia and it does become tough on the family. However just because people disagree on what should be done it doesnt mean that every time euthanasia is chosen that it will tear a family apart.

- 3 - Unnecessary pain
"This is true but with painkillers we can make the persons last days comfortable and let death take its course."
Pain killers dont solve all forms of suffering though. Painkillers dont alleviate being incontinent, being unable to walk, being unable to think right, having mental problems, having no memory of anything at all, being psychologically unstable, etc.

Painkillers dont solve everything and even with them people still suffer from other things for no reason.

- 4 - Moral Duty
"If letting a person die is morally permissible then killing someone is also, and vice versa."
Geez you like to warp reality. 1) Its not killing, they are opting for assisted suicide. 2) It is done to prevent further suffering in the last days the person will live. 3) It is done only by doctors who help the person carry out their last wish.

"Life is sacred and we should always seek to protect life and allow people to live until they die of natural causes"
We DO allow people to live until they die of natural causes, the only time it becomes complicated is when that person is about to die a painful death in a few days and wants to opt for an early death by their own choice. Then it becomes that person choice whether they want to love or not, and they have a damn good reason to not stay alive anymore, and then it becomes an issue since their life is on deaths door.

Point is, Euthanasia is painless, complications occur less than 10% of the time, of the complications that do occur many of them dont have horrific side effects, Euthanasia is so restricted where it is legal that only terminally ill people could opt for it, and it prevents suffering in that persons life when their life is about to end in a matter of days.....
Debate Round No. 2
KILLUMINATI

Con

(1)"Do you have any evidence to actually support this? Euthanasia could become legal but still be limited to those who are terminally ill"

There are two problems here the definition of "terminal" and the changes that have already taken place to extend euthanasia to those who aren't "terminally ill." There are many definitions for the word "terminal." For example when he spoke to the National Press Club in 1992 Kevorkian said that a terminal illness was "any disease that curtails life even for a day." The co-founder of the Hemlock Society often refers to "terminal old age." Some laws define "terminal" condition as one from which death will occur in a "relatively short time." Others state that "terminal" means that death is expected within six months or less.

Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is referred to, medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally ill don't die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. Increasingly, however, euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, replacing them with such phrases as "hopelessly ill," "desperately ill," "incurably ill," "hopeless condition," and "meaningless life."

An article in the journal, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, described assisted suicide guidelines for those with a hopeless condition. "Hopeless condition" was defined to include terminal illness, severe physical or psychological pain, physical or mental debilitation or deterioration, or a quality of life that is no longer acceptable to the individual. That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse .

(2)"You have a sorely misguided perception of what Euthanasia is my friend"

You missed my point. What I said was one way to distinguish euthanasia and assisted suicide is to look at the last act – the act without which death would not occur.

If a third party performs the last act that intentionally causes a patient’s death, euthanasia has occurred. For example giving a patient a lethal injection or putting a plastic bag over her head to suffocate her would be considered euthanasia(crude maybe).
On the other hand, if the person who dies performs the last act, assisted suicide has taken place. Thus it would be assisted suicide if a person swallows an overdose of drugs that has been provided by a doctor for the purpose of causing death. It would also be assisted suicide if a patient pushes a switch to trigger a fatal injection after the doctor has inserted an intravenous needle into the patient’s vein.
(3)"Those that practice euthanasia continue to risk charges of murder and prison sentences. Not necessarily is why I stated "risk"
My opponent said "So then you agree that doctors who practice Euthanasia are NOT at a large risk of being accused of murder"

Semantics is your game I see.

I said "Those that practice euthanasia continue to risk charges of murder and prison sentences."

Not necessarily is why I stated "risk" "To risk charges of murder and prison sentences."

Large or small risk I do not know they run a risk period.

(4)My opponent said "suicide isnt wrong"

I said "It is suicide and suicide is wrong"

Suicide is technically subjective I suppose. It depends who you ask.

(5)I said"Research has discovered that complications are common in assisted suicide,"

My opponent asked "Do you have evidence to suggest how it is common?"

My original post and the website: http://www.life.org.nz...;


(A)If its self induced then that means they tried to induce it, not a licensed doctor or a physician who actually knows what they are doing.

Assisted suicide would require a self induced coma. Euthnasisa would not.


(B)Not all Euthanasia comes in the form pills though. They come in many forms and people dont have to do it themselves if they arent capable.

Once again if it is euthanasia they would not need to be capable of movement. Assited suicide they would need to be capable of some movement.
(I wonder whether or not my opponent actually read any of this)


(C)"Barbiturates can cause extreme gasping and muscle spasms can occur."
Your own source says that this only happens when OVERDOSES of barbiturates are given

Correct but barbiturates are the most common substances used for assisted suicide in Oregon and in the Netherlands. Overdoses of barbiturates are known to cause distress extreme gasping and muscle spasms can occur. Point being that the overdose is given to end the patients life.
(D)See above rebutal the overdose of barbiturates is used to end the patients life

(E)See above rebutal the overdose of barbiturates is used to end the patients life

For the record, once again my source says this only occurs when overdoses of barbiturates are given the overdose of barbituates is used to end the patients life

(6)Hard on family

I will reiterate it would be hard the persons family.

In his book Death as a Salesman - What's Wrong with Assisted Suicide, anti-euthanasia activist Brian Johnston says:
If assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia were legal and readily available, opponents are concerned that those who are chronically or terminally ill and the elderly, might feel obligated to opt for death, so as not to be a burden on relatives or other caregivers.

Family members may not all agree that it is the best course of action for a loved one to choose euthanasia, causing conflict and a possible family split.
Example Terri Schiavo: http://www.terrisfight.org......


All of my opponents arguments are his opinion and not factual.


(7)Unnecessary pain argument my opponent is using is taken out of original context

There may be a cure found to save the persons life

**my opponent stated "People who undergo Euthanasia are often at the point where they have a matter of days left"

I replied this is true but with painkillers we can make the persons last days comfortable and let death take its course.


(8)Moral Duty

I stated "If letting a person die is morally permissible then killing someone is also, and vice versa."

Opponent stated "Geez you like to warp reality. 1) Its not killing, they are opting for assisted suicide. 2) It is done to prevent further suffering in the last days the person will live. 3) It is done only by doctors who help the person carry out their last wish."

**1.**Killing by definition is an act of causing death, esp. deliberately**2.**That does not make it morally right.**3.**Once again that does not make it morally right.



In conclusion:

I would like to thank my opponent for a superb debate. This debate has been a learning experience for me and hopefully for anyone that reads it.

The life in us however low the flame gets or fiercely it burns it is still a flame which no man dare put it out even if his motives are humane and enlightened. To suppose otherwise is to countenance a death wish. Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred or essential of no account it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some cases the other. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as euthanasia. Human life has dignity at every age the taking of human life is always wrong. I believe our nation at every level of government must reject any scheme to permit or promote assisted suicide and euthanasia. We must encourage new efforts to assist patients approaching the end of life to cope with their pain through medical, psychological, and social means.


Vote con vote against euthanasia. Support for euthanasia and assisted suicide is not a matter of prudential judgment there are never any reasons that justify killing.
















imabench

Pro

- 1 - Euthanasia available for thise NOT terminally ill
"There are many definitions for the word "terminal." "

Terminal illness - An advanced stage of a disease with an unfavorable prognosis and no known cure.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... illness

Terminal illness refers to an advanced incurable disease and people's life expectancies do vary but as the condition gets worse to the point where Euthanasia becomes eligible, then the disease has progressed to a point where a person would have maybe days left. Other than question the definition of terminal you have not defended your argument about how this will be available to other people like you said before.

- 2 - Nature of Euthanasia
" For example giving a patient a lethal injection or putting a plastic bag over her head to suffocate her would be considered euthanasia(crude maybe)."
Not only is it crude its impossible because Euthanasia only occurs from a lethal injection. You are trying to make Euthanasia look like an act of miserable suffering which it isnt, thus you are giving a crude and misinformed view of what Euthanasia really is.

- 3 - Doctors who do practice Euthanasia risk charges of murder or homicide
"I said "Those that practice euthanasia continue to risk charges of murder and prison sentences."
Two second later he said this,
"Large or small risk I do not know they run a risk period."

Well since you dont even know there is a risk and only assume there is when I have shown that they dont have the risk since there arent anti-euthanasia laws on the books in states that do allow euthanasia, then my point stands.

- 4 - Suicide is wrong?
"Suicide is technically subjective I suppose. It depends who you ask."
Im asking you to justify why suicide is wrong. You refused to give an answer so your claim that suicide is wrong is not backed up by logic or sources of any kind so I can argue that suicide isnt wrong.

Suicide can be seen as immoral, but suicide in this case refers to where the victim is suffering needlessly, does not have much time left on this Earth, and is dying from a terrible disease. It is immoral to make people have to endure suffering that will only kill them, so why shouldnt painless and voluntary suicide be considered? Since Euthanasia in this case is used to avoid further needless suffering at the end of ones life, then it isnt necessarily wrong sicne its used to prevent suffering, something that is morally right. Since the Pro refused to explain why suicide is wrong I have nothing to refute so this point stands

- 5 - Complications in assisted suicide
This is the link the Pro bases his claim off of
http://www.life.org.nz...

The link doesnt even work, therefore Pro has no evidence that complications in assisted suicide is higher than 50% since his previous sources and my own all show that complications only occur in about 10% of assisted suicides, which are forms of Euthanasia not controlled by a doctor or physician

As for the pills argument, the Pro said that Euthanasia is bad since patients with neurological issues might have problems swallowing the pills. I countered by saying that Euthanasia in that case wouldnt come in pill form and thus the problem would be averted. Pro responded by saying "If it is euthanasia they would not need to be capable of movement" and then accuses me of not reading his argument rather than actually answer my question. Thus the argument is dropped

As for all of the other issues he listed, all of which all are only possible if the patient is overdosed with barbiturates, Pro responded by saying
" Point being that the overdose is given to end the patients life."

Whereas thats completely false since its used only to calm them. The things the Pro listed can only be triggered by overdosing with barbiturates, however there are other forms of anesthetics that can be used, and since overdoses of these kinds are rare, the point is negated.

- 6 - Impact on family
The Pro says that euthanasia could make a family suffer, I argued that since the person is about to die anyways, that both choices would be hard on the family, that the choice would be made to help the person suffer less, and that a doctor or a physician ultimately can say if euthanasia is a possibility or not.

Pro dismissed all my arguments claiming they are opinionated even though they are not, so the point is conceded.

- 7 - Unnecessary pain and hopelessness of finding a cure
Pro's only response to my argument that a cure hasnt been found yet and people who undergo Euthanasia have a matter of days left is that "painkillers can fix this" Even after I already argued that painkillers do not solve all forms of suffering. So that point is also conceded by the Pro since even he agrees that a cure wont be found in time to save the patient since the disease has progressed too much.

- 8 - Moral Duty
When Presented with the argument that the patient is opting for suicide (which is not illegal) and is not murder since Euthanasia is legal, that it is done to prevent further suffering, and that doctors are carrying out the patients final wish without causing pain, the Pro sticks his head in the ground and states that it is wrong and its murder, ignoring my points yet again.

Opponents Conclusion
1) Lay off the Bold Print

2) "Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred or essential of no account"
Life IS sacred, im not disputing that. However when life has degraded to the point where the soul is being tortured on the inside when it doesnt have to since in a matter of days it will be free, then there isnt an issue with sacrificing the last few grisly moments of pain and suffering to liberate a person from their pain.

3) "Human life has dignity at every age the taking of human life is always wrong"
Funny that the Pro thinks that the taking of human life is always wrong yet supports the war on terrorism....

4) "I believe our nation at every level of government must reject any scheme to permit or promote assisted suicide and euthanasia"
And I was here to debate with you why that was, but you ignored half of my arguments

Before I go further, a list of forfeited arguments:
- Pro forfeits that complications of Euthanasia are very low
- Pro forfeits that Euthanasia is considered only to prevent further pain and suffering
- Pro forfeits that painkillers cant solve all the persons suffering
- Pro forfeits that a cure to the disease will not be found in time to save a persons life
- Pro forfeits that doctors have the biggest say in whether or not euthanasia should be considered
- Pro forfeits that if Euthanasia were legal it would only be available to people on deaths doorstep
- Pro forfeits that cases of Euthanasia that do go wrong often do not cause horrific side effects
- Pro forfeits that Euthanasia is done in a way to be as painless as possible
- Pro forfeits that preventing further unnecessary suffering isnt morally wrong
- Pro forfeits that doctors who perform euthanizations do not risk charges of murder or homicide
- Pro claims that all life is sacred yet supports the war on terrorism (I found it hypocritical so I brought it up)
- Lastly, the Pro claims that even if motives to end someones life is justified, it shouldnt be allowed.

Pro forfeited a lot of points but let me say this, Ive had family members be euthanized. I support euthanization though not only because it spares people suffering, but because it grants dying people the greatest liberty of all. The liberty to choose how they go out in life. Nobody here wants to go out in pain, alone, or suffering, and Euthanasia offers people the chance to avoid suffering, be with their loved ones in their final moments on this Earth, and escape an unnecessarily painful and prolonged death. Euthanasia allows people to escape suffering in the end days of their lives, its quick and painless, and is a lot better than dying a miserable painful death.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by drafterman 2 years ago
drafterman
KILLUMINATIimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: I don't think that Con adequately responded to Pro's rebuttals, letting them stand. Also, much of Con's arguments were not adequately supported and/or were slippery slopes (e.g. If euthenasia is allowed, it may become non-voluntary?!)