Suffering justifies euthanasia.
Debate Rounds (3)
In our culture, suffering is something to be eliminated, but often people don't see suffering for what it truly is. Suffering is something that all people experience. It is the opposite of pleasure, and can come in varying degrees, like receiving a burn while cooking, or it could be great, like a terminal illness. But the point that people often miss is that suffering has meaning and objective goods. These objective goods are enlightenment, detachment, compassion, the drawing out of love, the building of character, humility, and reparation.
Because suffering has objective goods, logic dictates that it should not be eliminated.
1- Everyone is accountable for their own actions
If someone requests to end their life, then there should be no objection.
2. It relives pain
3. The money used to keep an "almost dead" person alive can be used to sustain a homeless and/or the most in need of it.
You are correct in the fact that everyone is accountable for their own actions, but we also don't get everything that we want. In the case of those who wish to be euthanized because they are suffering, we must help them find meaning in their suffering. Did you know that people are 4 times more likely to request euthanasia when they are depressed? We need to help these people end their depression. As I said in my introduction, suffering has objective goods, and we need to help people realize what they are. (Source for the statistic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)
We actually do not know whether euthanasia is painful or not, because the patient does not survive the process to tell us. The only time we know that pain is relieved is when the patient is dead. There is also the chance of a patient having an adverse reaction to the medication used to euthanasia, causing more pain and suffering.
Finally, if we let a person die naturally, it is cheaper. You aren't paying for the euthanasia drugs or the life support. If a person is surviving only on life support, and they are already dying, they aren't entitled to the life support. They are however entitled to the basic needs like food, water, and shelter.
DEPRESSION IS NOT A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED IN SITUATION LIKE THIS
1. Whether they are depressed or not, it is their choice to make the decision. We cannot decide who should live and who not.
Also let's not forget that hey are terminally ill , they know they will die and that the chances of recovery are minuscule. How can you not expect them to be depressed?
A DOCTOR DUTY IS NOT TO TORTURE A PATIENT BY KEEPING HIM/HER ALIVE
2. A doctor duty is to save a patient's life but at the same time to free him/her from pain. By keeping someone, who requests euthanasia, alive you are prolonging their suffering and "torturing" them whereas the solution is far more preferable. The pain that is felt during the procedure is temporary whereas the one the patient feels during those weeks is far more agonizing, added to the fact that there's no chance of recovery at all.
I'm not sure where you got the information that Euthanasia is expensive, if you provide links, then I might believe you.
WHAT OBEJCTIVE GOOD ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?
Being in a depressed mood can also mean that a person has clinical depression. Since depression is a medical condition, I believe that it is a factor in the decision to euthanize because euthanasia is often in response to medical conditions or diseases. Depression causes changes in a person's moods and thoughts. If a person is faced with the decision to euthanize in this compromised state, they may end up making decision they will regret. Depression is a treatable condition, so at the very least we should try and treat it before giving them the option of euthanasia. It is perfectly normal to be a sad in the last stages of life, especially if the person in question has had great suffering. However, we must remember that suffering has objective goods that come from it. There are seven that I know of, and some don't appear in every situation.
Enlightenment: This is an objective good because it allows people to know the universal truth, and ultimately be happy because they know truly what is right and what is wrong (If you have more questions about this, please look at my comments on the debate). A person suffering will know more about the cause of their suffering, and related issues. This knowledge can be transmitted to others. For example, a person who has cancer, and their family, will know more about cancer, chemotherapy, and radiation treatments. The doctors treating the person will know how their treatments affect them and will be able to make adjustments in the future. This would ultimately contribute to society.
Detachment: Suffering will allow people to see what is truly important in our lives, and who are true friends are.
Drawing out of true love: Love is something that is an objective need for humans. There are subjective elements (meaning people love different things and in different ways), and different types (parental, friendship, etc.), but they are all love. True love is something that leads us to the universal truth, and eventually happiness.
Reparation: This is usually connected to economic suffering and not very applicable in our case. For example a person may have to pay for something they have broken or lost. Justice dictates that they have to pay, however the person may be suffering from a lack of money.
Compassion: A person will become more compassionate towards other people in the same suffering and will hope to support them. Compassion is objectively good, but it has subjective elements similarly to love.
Humility: We must recognize that humans have equal dignity and rights, so therefore we cannot become prideful. A person who is suffering could let go of their pride, and see that they are just like everyone else.
Building of character/virtue: A person who has suffered may become more patient, or courageous, thinking "I have gotten through X, so I can definitely do Y".
You are correct in saying that a doctor's duty is not to torture a patient by keeping him or her alive. A doctor's true duty is to resolve medical issues, and to assist in treatment. I'm not saying we keep a person on life support indefinitely, I'm saying to let them die a natural death. What I'm proposing is that we provide basic needs of food, water, shelter, and possibly pain medication if needed, but not things that replace life sustaining biological processes. This may not be as cheap as euthanasia, but it is cheaper than life support. Suffering cannot justify euthanasia instead of a natural death, not only because of the objective goods of suffering, but also suffering has no way of being measured. We cannot say how much suffering justifies an action, because it is immaterial (its not a physical object). If we say that an amount of suffering justifies an action, it could lead to a slippery slope. For example, people could be euthanized for treatable conditions, such as a cold, because it causes a great amount of suffering.
Thank you for debating with me, let the best argument win!
You keep forgetting and ignoring the fact that the patients we are talking about are terminally ill, that is they know they are going to die very soon.
Patients who live the last months or years of their life in a debilitating condition, should be given the choice of Euthanasia.
By justifying suffering, we are taking away their freedom of choice.
Depression is inevitable in a situation where you can't walk, move properly, eat properly, breath properly etc..
Yes it's curable, but not all of the time and also what changes could "not being depressed" produce to their physical condition?
If individuals have the right to live with dignity, they should also be given the choice to die with dignity.
The objective goods you are discussing about are irrelevant, because the patient's life is coming to an end , I doubt he/she would care about love, enlightenment, compassion when all they are asking for is relief from their agonizing condition.
By letting a person, who is requesting Euthanasia, die naturally, you are prolonging their suffering.
We certainly can't measure suffering, but at least we can say that each individual react to suffering in different ways. For some is unbearable and therefore by keeping them alive we are prolonging their torture.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.