The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

That we should legalise Euthanasia for terminal illnesses

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
hl0430 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 137 times Debate No: 96219
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Currently in our society, there are millions of people suffering from terminal diseases like cancer and heart diseases. Those people know that they are going to die, but has to endure the excruciating pain of the illness. Because the pain is unbearable and continuous, they will want to end their lives.

Those people see no future and therefore should be able to end their lives by assisted suicide. It is not humane to make people go through this extreme pain and suffering, when it is evident that they will be cured of their diseases.

Therefore, it is evident that euthanasia should be legalised for people with terminal illnesses.



The American Medical Association appears, in the following statement, to subscribe to the euphemism of "double effect": "The intent of palliative treatment is to relieve pain and suffering but the patient's death is a possible side effect of the treatment. It is ethically acceptable for a physician to gradually increase the appropriate medication for a patient, realizing that the medication may depress respiration and cause death". One wonders whether "double effect" really means "double standard". It seems that the debate is actually about who gets to have input into decisions regarding death.

Euthanasia raises a number of agonising moral dilemmas:
"is it ever right to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is undergoing severe pain and suffering?
"under what circumstances can euthanasia be justifiable, if at all?
"is there a moral difference between killing someone and letting them die?

At the heart of these arguments are the different ideas that people have about the meaning and value of human existence.

Should human beings have the right to decide on issues of life and death?
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by GrimlyF 1 week ago
Kazierno.Morality.You and just about everyone else always bang on about the "moral" the"right thing" to do.Morality is a train that can only follow a single track.Eu thanasia has been practised by ordinary men and women since prehistory.The ending of a loved ones life when it has become the only option possible is an ethical decision.I take you back to a place called Masada where a tribe of Jews are trying to fight off a Roman army bent on their destruction and enslavement.The tribe decide that in no circumstances will any of them be taken alive.The women kill their children,the men kill their women and then themselves.The moral thing would have been to capitulate because killing is wrong.Euthanasia cannot be wrong unless ALL killing is wrong.If it is morally wrong to kill someone in terminal agony it is just as wrong to kill a cold-blooded killer.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.