The Instigator
Arganger
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ChurnedCreamery
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

There is no such thing as a mercy killing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
ChurnedCreamery
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 103021
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Arganger

Pro

Anywhere it calls a murder a mercy killing, the reality is this: a hate crime. Calling a hate crime a mercy killing gives way to much sympathy to the killer, and devalues the victim. It also often affects the verdict and gives the murderer a break, while reinforcing the idea that the group of people the victim is from is inherently worth less.

I am mostly referring to in cases of parents or caregivers murdering a disabled person,but other cases may be discussed.
ChurnedCreamery

Con

First of all, my opponent did not define his/her terms, leaving me to define them.
Mercy killing: the killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease, typically by the administration of large doses of painkilling drugs.
Hate crime: a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence.
Simply put, mercy killing is motivated not by hateful motives but those of empathy. To say that mercy killing is murder is not only disrespectful to the being that committed euthanasia but to the "victim". As mercy killing is done out of pure empathy and with consent, to say that it is a hate crime is invalid.
Debate Round No. 1
Arganger

Pro

I did in part define mercy killing, but as this is my second time posting this debate I did so quickly. My definition: Killing someone with some kind of disability or illness, typically without permission of the patient.

I would argue that for someone to kill someone in this case- even an incurable and painful disease- it requires them to hold the belief that the victim's life is less worth living do to the circumstances of the victim, which is hate not true empathy, and can only be motivated by hate.
ChurnedCreamery

Con

Note: Please argue with something more than just petty emotions.You haven't shown any proof or evidence to support your claim, please do so in the argument below or I'll just forfeit.
empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
hate: feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone
In the words of Jack Kervorkian, "She made the decision that her existence had lost its meaning. And you cannot judge that".
As you have not made it clear or did not imply that what the definition was, I'd look to go in terms of Google: the killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease, typically by the administration of large doses of painkilling drugs.
By definition of medical news today, there are two different types of euthanasia.
1. Voluntary euthanasia is done by the victim of the situation, it is done with consent and has been legalized in many countries.
2. Involuntary euthanasia (Probably the type of euthanasia you were regarding), is conducted without consult. The decision is typically made by another person and is in the case of people who are incapable of making the decision for themselves.
In both cases, it has been made clear that the decision would be done with consult if possible, involuntary euthanasia and voluntary euthanasia are done with the best of intentions. If consent was given, how can it be murder, it is simply just another treatment option.
The right to die is a constitutional safeguard, it is guaranteed with the same rights promised years ago.
You can look upon California's legalized End of Life Senate bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov...
I'd now like to have a thought experiment with Rachael Smiths and Jones:
(1) If a person is suffering considerable pain due to an incurable illness, then in some cases that person"s death is in his or her own interest.
(2) If a person"s death is in his or her own interest, then committing suicide is also in that person"s own interest.
(3) Therefore, if a person is suffering considerable pain due to an incurable illness, then committing suicide is in that person"s own interest.
It is in the person's best interest to commit euthanasia.
Debate Round No. 2
Arganger

Pro

Regarding your note: I both put this in philosophy for a reason, and am trying to keep my emotions in check but because of the nature of the debate and the fact that it is personal, it is hard.

Killing someone isn't really what could be considered a treatment option because treatment, by definition is: the management and care of a patient to combat disease or disorder. Euthanasia is not a treatment, if only because it does nothing to combat the illness the person is facing, what it does is to speed up death.

I would also argue that in the case of someone giving consent, that do to the situation of which they would consider such a thing they are not in a proper state of mind to do so. For instance if their condition is painful, something they are not used to, they might wish for death simply because they have not come to terms with it yet. Most people who experience chronic pain don't wish for death.

The reason hate comes into this is simple: The suicide or killing of other people is not regarded the same way. The fact that their life is regarded as less worth living, shows a clear devaluing. Hate can and does often look like compassion or empathy, but really is pity. The distinction is important however, I can tell you first hand how much it sucks to be pitied, it is very devaluing.

It simply as well cannot be in someone's best interest to be euthanized, because it is final. Death is final, and to bring it on purposefully isn't providing an solutions.

I would also like to state that Involuntary euthanasia (Illegal and legal depending on country)is also more common than you may think, in many ways and many groups of disabled or ill people, even if their life wasn't threatened. Even children.
ChurnedCreamery

Con

By definition, Euthanasia is a cure or treatment, it does speed up the timeliness of death, but in an overwhelming majority of cases, they are terminal illnesses. In the case of such illnesses, the treating physician or doctor must consent with the family or victim.
Your initial statement devalues the patient's own consideration, a doctor's obligation is for the betterment of a patient. If one is in chronic pain, the best possibility is in the interest of the patient, if that intention is for suicide then so be it. To say that euthanasia devalues the patient, but then point to the own patient and say that their opinion has no say in the matter is truly hypocritical. The patient's life is not devalued in this case, euthanasia only looks at the wellbeing of the patient, euthanasia does not show that the life is pointless: It ends the "pain" at a faster rate.
Consent: permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
The wishes of one can not be devalued no matter the condition. IConsent is usually not made with just the victim but also relatives like family. There also tend to be multiple evaluations.
To say that people have not come to terms with their pain is simply false, your statement hints at the possibility of terminal illness to be cured as an absolute. This is simply not the case, Chronic pain is practically guaranteed or almost certain, and is therefore incurable. As for your statement on how people with chronic pain don't want to die, give me a link, please.
Pity by definition: the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others.
Hate by definition: feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).
So no, hate and pity are practically polar opposites, it is not and can not be similar. There is simply no distinction to make between the two because they are and will never be grouped together.
You seemed to have misunderstood my argument which has turned it into a strawman, for such reasoning I will post it again and help you understand:(1) If a person is suffering considerable pain due to an incurable illness, then in some cases that person"s death is in his or her own interest.
(2) If a person"s death is in his or her own interest, then committing suicide is also in that person"s own interest.
(3) Therefore, if a person is suffering considerable pain due to an incurable illness, then committing suicide is in that person"s own interest.
It is in the person's best interest to commit euthanasia.
In the case of many euthanized victims, death was guaranteed so to say that it was "final" is a fair statement but one that wouldn't have mattered. Whereas I'd agree with your statement that it is not a solution towards a disease, it is a solution the pain.
http://www.life.org.nz...
Regarding your argument of not being in the right state of mind, I believe that it is in the best interest of many to have their life in the minds of those who are right-minded. Also, your mentioning of children is indeed a logical fallacy known as the appeal to emotion.
It was fun debating, now to make my concluding statement: Euthanasia is not murder, rather it looks for the wellbeing of the patient and takes into consideration the wishes of the being as well as others.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Arganger 6 months ago
Arganger
I should've made this four rounds so I apologize for that oversight by the way.
Posted by Arganger 6 months ago
Arganger
Well the question of the motivation of killers, and value of life vs suffering, is philosophy. Health or politics would also work, but I felt that the nature of the question, as it regards ethics was more fitting.
Posted by ChurnedCreamery 6 months ago
ChurnedCreamery
Why is this in Philosophy, wouldn't health or politics be more suitable.
Posted by Arganger 6 months ago
Arganger
JimShady I would have been.
Posted by canis 6 months ago
canis
Mercy is an idea...Ideas do exist.
Posted by JimShady 6 months ago
JimShady
Would you be willing to debate a scenario such as the one in Windtalkers where Nicholas Cage (a soldier) shoots one of his friend because he was burning alive?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by gocubsgo25 6 months ago
gocubsgo25
ArgangerChurnedCreameryTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debators provided quality arguments to support their case. However, I feel that Con provided better counter-arguments and rebuttals that Pro simply was unable to match. Pro did not cite many (if any at all) sources, while Con provided many definitions and urged Pro for links to his (Pro's) sources. None of these links or sources ever made it into the debate despite the efforts of Con. Good debate to both of you, but I believe Con was slightly better and more convincing, earning him 3 of 4 categories.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 6 months ago
dsjpk5
ArgangerChurnedCreameryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: The resolution denied the existence of mercy killings, but both sides argued the Con position (that they do exist). While Pro argued that such killings are immoral, that presupposes their existence.