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

This House Believes That Voluntary Euthanasia should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,685 times Debate No: 65286
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Ok First, I want to define about Voluntary Euthanasia it self. Voluntary Euthanasia is euthanasia conducted with consent from family and especially from sufferer it self. Since 2009 voluntary euthanasia has been legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the states of Oregon (USA) and Washington (USA).
Read more: Euthanasia Legalized in The Netherlands |

So, I believe that government in THE ALL COUNTRY should be legal Voluntary Euthanasia (Voluntary Euthanasia : Passive and Active). My argument are :

1. Justification
This is justice for the sufferer especially. Because, this is their right to choose kill their self or not even they suffer an ill that can't be cure. So, it's very clearly that we can't less their right.

2. Social side
Let's think logic. They suffer an ill that can't be cure. An example is : HIV. And you know that HIV is ill that can contagious. So, it will give bad influence for the sufferer it self. In their environment, they will feel discriminative. People in their environment will avoid them.

3. Economic side
Will need much money for their treatment. Whereas, they ill can't be cure and it just vain. It's not solve a problem, and just waste their money. And this will less their right (Family who still alive). And the better is that money use for the people who still alive for fulfill their right.


Let there be a definition of of Euthanasia since it is clearly needed. " the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy"
( also is known as "assisted suicide"

Pro has provided us with three main points or substantives (which she elaborated on) that she has based her arguments on:
1) Justification :
Pro believes that euthanasia is justified simply because a person may choose to be euthanised. People who contemplate euthanasia usually do so because they may be terminally ill or posses an incurable disease, that being said, their state of mind is thought not to be a 100% because they are dying and even if family is involved in the decision it is still not a fool proof solution as the family might have economic problems and opt for the easier solution or chose euthanasia simple to get rid of him/her. No should have the right to kill themselves or others , because it is a very illogical thing to legislate to a tiny proportion of society in comparison to the larger proportion. it is said " hard cases make bad law", euthanasia is often misleadingly linked to the phrase "right to die" (even pro has fallen into that pit), as it is not exactly the right to die at all... it's actually a right (if it actually is a right) to be killed by a doctor ... hence assisted suicide.

Allowing difficult cases to create a precedent for legalised killing is the wrong response. We need rather to evaluate these difficult cases so that we can do better in the future. This was clearly demonstrated in the case of Nigel Cox, the Winchester rheumatologist found guilty of attempted murder after giving a patient with rheumatoid arthritis a lethal injection of potassium chloride in August 1991. Had he been willing to consult those specialised in pain management, he could have relieved his patient's symptoms without killing her.[2] If errors of omission are acknowledged, changes can be made. source :

Euthanasia may seem like showing mercy and putting a person out of their misery but in most legal systems, it is seen as murder. you may take the misery out of one life (whilst "painlessly" killing them) but really, you risk and endanger the life of many others in the same predicament. Research is done on incurable diseases like Cancer and alzheimer's disease, if we were to allow voluntary euthanasia, we'd destroy any chances of finding cures to diseases and potentially save thousands of lives.
Research on euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide in Holland[6] showed that approximately 10% of the former and 30% of the latter forms of attempted ?mercy killings' investigated by the authors were complicated by untoward problems. They included patients who recovered from an induced coma, prolonged waiting for death, vomiting and fits; and technical problems with administering the lethal substance.
Some patients experienced more than one complication. For these people, one could hardly distinguish the experience as death with dignity.(
Life is precious and passing a law for ALL countries to allow voluntary euthanasia would undermine the value and sanctity of life, sure, a cure may not come today or next week but its in the works and people are working hard for one, this is an easy way out in comparison to hanging in there and hoping for the best.
2)Social : pro said "Let's think logic. They suffer an ill that can't be cure. An example is : HIV. And you know that HIV is ill that can contagious. So, it will give bad influence for the sufferer it self. In their environment, they will feel discriminative. People in their environment will avoid them."
that did not make enough sense to me to be a social impact. i will give you an example of a social impact.
when it comes to Euthanasia, the crowd isn't split into majority and minority but rather evenly, to allow voluntary euthanasia. Islam and Christianity are the two biggest religious communities in the whole world, BOTH religions condemn suicide or killing oneself or mercy killing and since euthanasia can be called either one and all three of theses, euthanasia is forbidden and haram. Christianity story supporting my stance . story of JOB:In the Bible . . .

In the book of Job, when Job is under great distress and in great pain, his wife says to him "'Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!' 10 But he said to her, 'You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. A279;A279;Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?' A279;A279;In all this Job did not sin with his lips." (Job 2:9-10). Basically, Job's wife wanted him to euthanize himself to avoid the pain of his life, but Job refused to do so, and in this he did not sin.

Heb. 9:27, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment."

The Bible tells us that it is God who appoints people to die. Essentially, assisted suicide is an attempt to deny God his sovereign right to appoint who dies when. We must be careful not to take into our own hands the right that belongs to God. source:

Islam :It is Haram (prohibited) for a patient to hasten their death, whether by committing suicide or by taking medication to kill themselves. It is also Haram for a doctor, a nurse, or any other person to carry out the patient"s request, even if their disease is incurable. Anyone who assists in this shares in the sin, because they intentionally kill a human, whose life is protected by Shari"ah (Islamic law), without a right. There are clear Nas (Islamic texts from the Qur"an or the Sunnah) prohibiting the killing of a human being without a right. Allah (Exalted be He) says:

...and kill not anyone whom All"h has forbidden, except for a just cause (according to Isl"mic law). [Surah Al-Anam 6:151]

And do not kill yourselves (nor kill one another). Surely, All"h is Most Merciful to you. And whoever commits that through aggression and injustice, We shall cast him into the Fire, and that is easy for All"h. [Surah Al-Nisa 4:29]
Also, it was authentically reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:

Anyone who kills themselves with a piece of iron (a weapon) will have that piece of iron in their hand and will be stabbing their stomach with it in the Fire of Hell forever, abiding eternally therein. Anyone who drinks poison and kills themselves will be drinking it in the Fire of Hell forever, abiding eternally therein. And anyone who throws themselves from (the top of) a mountain and kills themselves will be throwing themselves down in the Fire of Hell forever, abiding eternally therein. (Agreed upon by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
source :
and finally... the economic effect of passing such a law: pro said " much money for their treatment". Money that goes into treatment pales in comparison to the investments that go into the research of cures which is actually millions. like i said before, allowing euthanasia would destroy chances for research for cures and therefore wasted money in the process. therefore taking down pros argument based on economy
Debate Round No. 1


First, I will rebut all points that con said in the 1st round.

1. Justification
Con said that "No should have the right to kill themselves or others.". First, I said before is right to choose kill their self not choose to kill other people. And the second, Everyone has the right to decide how they should die. The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court's recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death.

A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained.

The central ethical argument for voluntary euthanasia " that respect for persons demands respect for their autonomous choices as long as those choices do not result in harm to others " is directly connected with this issue of competence (cp. Brock 1992) because autonomy presupposes competence. People have an interest in making important decisions about their lives in accordance with their own conception of how they want their lives to go. In exercising autonomy or self-determination, people take responsibility for their lives; since dying is a part of life, choices about the manner of their dying and the timing of their death are, for many people, part of what is involved in taking responsibility for their lives. Many people are concerned about what the last phase of their lives will be like, not merely because of fears that their dying might involve them in great suffering, but also because of the desire to retain their dignity and as much control over their lives as possible during this phase.

The technological interventions of modern medicine have had the effect of stretching out the time it takes for many people to die. Sometimes the added life this brings is an occasion for rejoicing; sometimes it drags out the period of significant physical and intellectual decline that a person undergoes in burdensome ways so that life becomes, to them, no longer worth living. There is no single, objectively correct answer as to when, if at all, life becomes a burden and unwanted. But that simply points up the importance of individuals being able to decide autonomously for themselves whether their own lives retain sufficient quality and dignity to make life worth living. Given that a critically ill person is typically in a severely compromised and debilitated state, it is, other things being equal, the patient's own judgement of whether continued life is a benefit that must carry the greatest weight, provided always that the patient is competent.

Earlier this year, a court in Ireland rejected ex-lecturer Marie Fleming"s bid to commit suicide, despite multiple sclerosis reducing her life to "irreversible agony." At the center of this dispute was her partner Tom, who was told he could face up to 14 years in prison if he helped her die. In other words, with a stroke of their pen, Ireland"s top court condemned a woman to live in unimaginable physical agony while also saddling her partner with an impossible choice: to watch the person he loves suffer daily or help relieve her pain and go to prison. By any sane reckoning this should count as institutional cruelty, yet rulings like this happen all the time.

Take the case of paralyzed UK resident Paul Lamb. Last month, a judge ruled that any nurse or doctor who helps him take his own life will be prosecuted, despite Lamb describing his life as a "living hell." Or the case of Diane Pretty who in 2002 was told her husband would be prosecuted if he tried to help her avoid the horrible death she eventually had. Simply put, laws against assisted death cause suffering on an unprecedented scale, not just for the terminally ill but for their families as well.
source :

What con said truly illogical and baseless. About justification, con failed to break my argument about 'human right' and misrepresented.

2) Social
I already talk it in the 1st round. It's give pressure for the sufferer it self. So many cases tell us about discriminative people has suffer that can't be cure like HIV. Can you imagine how tortured they are. They under pressure because their ill even other pressure from people in that environment. They don't know how to cure their ill when cure has yet been discovered by researchers. And the reality, for times not only a day or only 2 weeks but need some years. And do you want to see them more torture?

Con talk about 'religion' in this debate. And unfortunately, con just explain 2 religions. But, we don't talk only about Arab with majority people there muslim. Or we don't talk only about America with majority people there Christian. If con want to prove it in religion, he should explain all religions not only 2 religions. In the fact, so many religions in this world. And also, how about people atheist? If you talk about God, it seems like you didn't considers their presence in this world. So, we should talk here is as government. And I'm as pro was bring my argument that logic and based on the fact.

In social side con failed to bring this motion in religion. And unfortunately, con trying to break my argument but he didn't give us the best solution about this motion.


Even with the best palliative care, between 5% & 10% of those dying cannot have their suffering adequately relieved. Pain is often a major problem, but not the only one - nausea, vomiting, coughing, breathlessness, incontinence, & other horrible symptoms can be difficult to treat. Severe weakness & total dependence on others are inevitable & many people find this the most distressing thing to bear. The final stages are often treated by increasing the dosage of pain-killers such as morphine & heroin & also by giving sedatives which induce sleep which slides into coma & death. This is known as 'terminal sedation' & in most cases the patient takes no part in the decision to use it.

Most people would be shocked to think economics factored into their life-or-death decisions, and rightly so. However, there"s no getting around how absurdly expensive end-of-life care is in America: According to CNN, one in every four Medicare dollars spent goes to the five percent of beneficiaries in the last year of their life. The upshot of this is often crippling debt for the families of terminally ill patients, with the care of a single individual at the end of their life costing an estimated $39,000. For 40 percent of households, the bill exceeds their financial assets.

This might be acceptable if end-of-life care was worth the money, but it"s objectively not. Doctors will readily attest to the ability of modern medicine to slightly prolong life"at the cost of totally destroying its quality. If you can"t be bothered to read that last link, I"ll sum it up here: End-of-life care is often brutal, nasty, traumatic, and very expensive, putting patients through long stretches of unnecessary suffering just to give them an extra month or two. And when the terminally ill patient undergoing these nasty, expensive treatments has repeatedly insisted that they"d rather be dead, you have to start wondering who all this expenditure is really benefiting.


Firstly, I thank my opponent for presenting their argument clearly, moving on to my reasoning and answers as to why I mentioned religion and such:
I mentioned Islam and Christianity because they have remained the two dominant religions on this planet, this was merely an example as to what unrest a decision to suddenly force ALL GOVERMENTS around the world including the government of Saudi Arabia ( a sovereign Muslim state with Shariah law) meaning that the religious right and the countries sovereignty is violated. it should be up to individual countries or states ( depending on the way a country is divided and ruled, e.g. USAfederal system) to decide whether or not to adopt or implement Voluntary euthanasia to their system , so to force the idea to ALL countries is quite unfair.
Euthanasia can be violated: Like pro mentioned , euthanasia is legalized in many places, one of them being Netherlands, they have voluntary euthanasia, what pro failed to mention was that, a lot of theses deaths linked to euthanasia were not voluntary or not even necessary to do so .Dutch doctors practice active euthanasia by lethal injections (96.6% of all deaths actively caused by physicians in 1990). Physician-assisted suicide is very infrequent (no more than 3.4% of all cases in Holland of active termination of life in 1990).
For patients who die of a lethal overdose of painkillers, the decision to administer the lethal dose of drugs was not discussed with 61% of those receiving it, even though 27% were fully competent.
The Board of the Royal Dutch Medical Association endorsed euthanasia on new-borns and infants with extreme disabilities.
Well over 10,000 citizens now carry "Do Not Euthanize Me" cards in case they are admitted to a hospital unexpectedly.
Cases exist where doctors administer assisted suicide for people determined to be "chronically" depressed.
source :
so basically , voluntary euthanasia could lead to involuntary or unnecessary euthanasia. Sympathy is powerful and a doctor is human and could sympathise with the pain of a patient and kill him/her, which is wrong.
hope is positively powerful, hope for a cure needs to be present, with euthanasia as an option present, it clouds and sends away hope for a cure, when infact , people work hard researching and trying to find one.
a point that was not taken down was the point on research. research is done and being done to find to find a cure, and that means fundraisers , investors and personal capital put into research and easily trumps the individual fee for a patient, this point was not taken down.

Requests for voluntary euthanasia are rarely free and voluntary

A patient with a terminal illness is vulnerable. He lacks the knowledge and skills to alleviate his own symptoms, and may well be suffering from fear about the future and anxiety about the effect his illness is having on others. It is very difficult for him to be entirely objective about his own situation. Those who regularly manage terminally ill patients recognise that they often suffer from depression or a false sense of worthlessness which may affect their judgment. Their decision-making may equally be affected by confusion, dementia or troublesome symptoms which could be relieved with appropriate treatment. Patients who on admission say 'let me die' usually after effective symptom relief are most grateful that their request was not acceded to. Terminally ill patients also adapt to a level of disability that they would not have previously anticipated they could live with. They come to value what little quality of life they have left.

Many elderly people already feel a burden to family, carers and a society which is cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request euthanasia 'freely and voluntarily'. These patients need to hear that they are valued and loved as they are. They need to know that we are committed first and foremost to their well-being, even if this does involve expenditure of time and money. The way we treat the weakest and most vulnerable people speaks volumes about the kind of society we are.

Voluntary euthanasia denies patients the final stage of growth

It is during the time of a terminal illness that people have a unique opportunity to reflect on the way they have lived their lives, to make amends for wrongs done, to provide for the future security of loved ones and to prepare mentally and spiritually for their own death. Not all make full use of this opportunity, but those involved in hospice work often observe a mending of family relationships and rediscovery of mutual love and responsibility that may not have been evident for years.

It is often through facing the hardship that terminal illness brings, and through learning to accept the practical help of others that human character and maturity develops most fully. Death if properly managed can be the final stage of growth. It can also be a time when words are spoken and strength imparted that will help sustain 'those left behind' through the years ahead.

Losing the opportunity of caring for vulnerable people denies us an essential part of our humanity. We conquer suffering, not by being insulated from its realities, but by facing it. Voluntary euthanasia, by artificially shortening life, denies these possibilities.
source :
In Belgium, which legalised euthanasia in 2002, there has been a 500% increase in euthanasia deaths over ten years between 2003 and 2012. High profile cases include Mark and Eddy Verbessem, the 45-year-old deaf identical twins, who were euthanised by the Belgian state, after their eyesight began to fail; then there is Nathan/Nancy Verhelst, whose life was ended in front of TV cameras, after a series of botched sex-change operations. His mother said she hated girls, found her child 'so ugly' at birth and did not mourn his death. And then there is Ann G, who had anorexia and who opted to have her life ended after being sexually abused by the psychiatrist who was supposed to be treating her for the life-threatening condition.

Organ donation euthanasia is already practised in Belgium and the Belgian Senate is tomorrow discussing plans to extend the programme to minors and people with dementia (they have since recommended this). Already in parts of Belgium one in three cases of euthanasia is involuntary and half go unreported. And there has been not one prosecution for abuses in the last ten years " perhaps because the one of the lead euthanasia practitioners " Distelmans " chairs the very committee that is meant to regulate his activity.

Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, first released assisted suicide statistics in 2009, laying bare a 700% rise in cases (from 43 to 297) from 1998 to 2009. Amongst those travelling from abroad to end their lives at the notorious Dignitas facility have been many people who could not by any stretch be described as terminally ill " and included cases of people who could have lived for decades ending their lives - with arthritis, blindness, spinal injury, diabetes, mental illness - or people who were essentially well but could not bear to live without their spouses.
Debate Round No. 2


Rizkaa forfeited this round.


mumble326 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Wow, it ended as I was about to vote.

Pro plagiarized all their arguments from other sources though:

If quoting writing from elsewhere be sure to cite it and give credit from now on.
Posted by mumble326 2 years ago
I'm not sure I'm ddebatingwith the same person ... Mass difference between first and second statements
No votes have been placed for this debate.