The Instigator
knight.j
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Darrentu
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should people have the right to die?

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 2 votes the winner is...
knight.j
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/12/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 579 times Debate No: 58867
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

knight.j

Pro

The UK government is currently considering a change in the law, in order to give some people the right to die. I think that they should give people the right to die, however not everyone.

If somebody just wants to commit suicide because they feel like it, then I don't believe they should have the right to do so. However, if someone is in immense pain and at deaths door, then why shouldn't they be able to end their own lives? Is it not the right thing to do to let someone stop themselves from being in pain?

I look forward to debating this topic with whoever accepts.

Thank you.
Darrentu

Con

So as first opposition for 'do we have the right to die', I want to address the issue of autonomy. What do you believe is self-controlled? Do you believe that you own yourself?

As we both know, the common ground (generally speaking) of euthanasia is the fact that we both want to end patient suffering. The suffering may end by means of 'mercy killing' or by the hope of a cure. The 'cure' idea is the more optimal approach because the knowledge on diseases and illnesses are rapidly improving. This means that there may be cures for a disease 10 years into the future, and the patient may be free from his/her suffering then.

Second, one major concern for euthanasia has always been religious indifference when looking at the topic. Let's take, for example, Catholicism, where it is believed that euthanasia is clearly a sin. It is expected of them to "hold the cross" for the sake of Christ. Also, it is very evident that they believe in the concept of God owning humans. Since God created humans, therefore, it is God that takes away the life of the human. If we allow euthanasia to be widely accepted and passed through the UK's constitution, there may be many religious riots.

Thirdly, there may be many who claim that euthanasia may be more economically beneficial. The reason behind this is because it takes a lot of money to take care of a patient. The problem with this ideology is the simple fact that human lives are being measured in monetary terms. It is almost like the society will be assigning a dollar sign beside every human. Think about it. If monetary terms are associated with humans, then slavery would come back again. A person who is wealthy enough may be able to buy another person. Human lives are 'priceless' because they can not and should not be measured in monetary terms. It should also be stated that euthanasia is a contradicting value we have as a society. The ideas of 'never give up', or 'be persistent' is totally ignored or destroyed when the topic of euthanasia is encountered. If an elder can't even hold true to there own value, why should children be expected?

Fourth, this is ultimately a 'slippery slope' argument. If we allow patients who are suffering in the hospital to have a choice of dying, should we allow those who are in a depression to end their lives as well? What should we do if we see a rise in teenage girl suicides because they are disappointed with their self-image. What if a naive teenage boy wanting to try 'mercy killing' because his girlfriend just broke up with him? Should we allow euthanasia to be the answer?
Debate Round No. 1
knight.j

Pro

You have given some interesting arguments in your reply. Your answers are given in bold, and my rebuttals are in normal font.
This means that there may be cures for a disease 10 years into the future, and the patient may be free from his/her suffering then.

Are you trying to say that just because there is a chance we will have a cure in ten years, we should make someone go through tremendous pain until we have a cure? If they want to kill themselves over it, then they can clearly not put up with it for that amount of time.

Let's take, for example, Catholicism, where it is believed that euthanasia is clearly a sin.

If the Catholics believe that it is wrong to kill themselves, then they don't have to do so. But why should someone who has no problem with Euthanasia have to go through long-term pain so they don't upset the Catholics?

If monetary terms are associated with humans, then slavery would come back again. A person who is wealthy enough may be able to buy another person.

I fail to see how giving someone the right to die is going to bring back slavery. The UK government can introduce Euthanasia without re-introducing Slavery.

If an elder can't even hold true to there own value, why should children be expected?

An elder killing themselves is not going to tell a youngster that they can kill themselves as soon as they come across a problem. It is telling them that they can kill themselves if they go through tremendous pain, which they will be able to if we introduce Euthanasia.

What should we do if we see a rise in teenage girl suicides because they are disappointed with their self-image.

We won't see this happen, because the government could say that it is OK to kill yourself if you are going through pain, but not OK if you are killing yourself due to a spot on your face. Anyway, there is nothing stopping a teenage girl from killing herself now. Do you think that if a girl wants to kill herself, she will think against it because there is no law permitting it?

I await your response. I can see that the rest of this debate is going to be enjoyable and interesting.

Darrentu

Con

Comments: Cheers, brave knight. Your debating skills are stronger than I thought. First, I want to inform that inside a debate, you must be one-sided. You can't, for example, say that one form of euthanasia is allowed but another form is not allowed. In your case, you have to completely agree with euthanasia. This is what makes debating challenging but fun. Thank-you.

Debate:
Let's take, for example, Catholicism, where it is believed that euthanasia is clearly a sin.

Politically speaking, since the majority of UK is either Christian/Catholic, to support euthanasia may result through huge losses of votes. The same idea goes for same-sex marriage. You may argue that the person who doesn"t "believe" in gay marriage needs not to be gay. But still, when regarding a huge population that disagrees with the ideology, it may create many disturbances in the society as a whole.

If monetary terms are associated with humans, then slavery would come back again. A person who is wealthy enough may be able to buy another person.

The example I gave was a stretch on how "monetary value" can result to. Of course, I wouldn"t expect the socio to start accepting slavery. All I was saying is that if we look at someone through monetary terms, people"s rights may be jeopardized or ignored.

If an elder can't even hold true to their own value, why should children be expected?

Let"s take, for example, that the child is hurt as he falls down on the playground. When the mother runs to help her child, the child starts to stab himself because of the immense pain. After coming out the hospital along with the finished treatment, the mother asks the child why he did that. The child answered that his grandpa didn"t do any different. This, of course, is an extreme example, but the point is still that pain is relative. The level of what an adult can call pain may be different from his/her child. To say that anyone who is suffering from pain has the right to die will result in chaos inside of the society.

What should we do if we see a rise in teenage girl suicides because they are disappointed with their self-image.

You mildly supported my argument on euthanasia.
Debate Round No. 2
knight.j

Pro


The same idea goes for same-sex marriage. You may argue that the person who doesn"t "believe" in gay marriage needs not to be gay. But still, when regarding a huge population that disagrees with the ideology, it may create many disturbances in the society as a whole.


There are a great number of people in the UK who don't believe in same-sex marriage, but the government passed it anyway because it is what they thought was right. I wouldn't say the change has caused many disturbances, and I don't feel that Euthanasia would cause great disturbance either. Of course, there is a chance, but the government has shown, by passing same-sex marriage, that they are not afraid to risk upsetting some people in order to make society fairer.



All I was saying is that if we look at someone through monetary terms, people"s rights may be jeopardized or ignored.


I don't think they would be ignored, instead, I think people's human rights would improve. They would still have all the rights which they currently have; the right to die wouldn't remove the right to liberty. However they would also have an additional right, which would make some people happier.



Let"s take, for example, that the child is hurt as he falls down on the playground. When the mother runs to help her child, the child starts to stab himself because of the immense pain.


What child carries around knifes in his pocket? When the child is in pain, they are usually under the supervision of their parent. Therefore, they wouldn't have the chance to kill themselves until the pain was over. When the pain is over, the child will no longer want to kill themselves. Besides, it would have to be a pretty bad cut to make the child want to die. With respect, I agree that this is an extreme example, too extreme in fact to even consider. There are always risks in this world, but some of them are extremely unlikely, so we just have to ignore them.



You mildly supported my argument on euthanasia.


I disagree that I supported your argument. I was implying that by making Euthanasia legal, it wouldn't make the chances of a teenage girl killing herself any higher because they already have the chance too. So, this doesn't have to be considered when discussing Euthanasia.



Conclusions in round 4 Con. Over to you.


Darrentu

Con

Darrentu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
knight.j

Pro

I still think that people should have the right to die if they are going through pain and suffering. Con made an argument saying that if the person waits another ten years, then we may find a way to help them. No one wants to go through pain for ten years! It wouldn’t be fair, we know better than to make someone do that in modern society.

As for religious views, we are not making people end their lives when they go through pain. If a Catholic is going through pain but doesn’t want to end his/her life, then that is fine. But why should we let the Catholics decide what we do? We have a government to tell us what we can and cannot do; it is not the Catholics place to do so.

Con also said that introducing Euthanasia would put a “monetary value” on our lives. I still do not see where he is coming from. We would still have all the same rights which we have now, and therefore we would be just as valuable and human.

In conclusion, Euthanasia should be made legal because it is our choice. We should be able to make our own choice. If we want to end our lives and end our suffering, then we should be able to do so. If for some reason it did put a “monetary value” on our lives, then it would put a monetary value on everyone’s life in the UK, so it wouldn’t make a difference. We have the right to life, so why shouldn’t we have the right to death?

Darrentu

Con

Darrentu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by HeyBro 2 years ago
HeyBro
Hey Bro, Im one of those people who aren't terminally ill but would 100% rather end my life now, than live another 50 years. I didn't know about euthanasia drugs until this year. I reckon you got no clue how difficult it is to run infront of a truck or jump off a building or put a hole in skull with a gun. Look, if you were God, and you created these robots that souls could go into, if the soul no longer wanted to be in the robot, wouldn't you make it easy for them to get out of the robot? Ofcourse, why would God trap a soul in a body that it doesn't want to be in? I dont believe in souls, or creation. I know that if there were a loving god who created us, he/she let us have an easier exit than jumping off a bridge and shattering our bones and then drowning as we flail around in the water trying not to drown even though we want to die because drowning is so awful.
Anyone who says I dont have a right to euthanasia drugs is being deathly violent to me. Because what you are saying is I must jump off the bridge. Bro, the day you shatter a bunch of your bones and they pierce your vital organs, thats the worst day of your life. With euthanasia drugs, its just falling asleep. You want me to experience Horror Terror Unreasonable amounts of pain because you think I should be forced to live for your sake? I dont even know you, you dont even know me. How come you want me to live?
Posted by Armadillosushi 2 years ago
Armadillosushi
I agree with Pro. Better to end your life on your own terms instead of drawing your death out for a long, painful time. Besides, it would be regulated by doctors, and they wouldn't euthanize a patient unless there was absolutely no hope for relief.
Posted by IndianaFrank 2 years ago
IndianaFrank
I agree. People should be able to end there life with some dignity. If your objection is of a religious nature then that's between them and god.... not you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
knight.jDarrentu
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by QandA 2 years ago
QandA
knight.jDarrentu
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited two rounds.