This house would ban euthanasia
Debate Rounds (2)
I will send some arguments regarding why I want to defend this statement.
Firstly, euthanasia is murder. Because euthanasia requires us to kill somebody who is in agony or old. Someone like our grandparents who are suffering under some bad circumstances. Let's take an example of a grandpa who is suffering under stroke disease and cannot even move his body. If we do euthanasia to this grandpa it means that we are commiting a crime. Because we don't know whether this grandpa wants to die or not. We still don't know whether he still wants to continue to live on his life. Then do you think this is what we should do toward the grandpa? I think the answer should be no.
Second argument is that doing euthanasia toward someone is included as an abusement toward people's life to live. Even though if we are looking at someone who is already half-dead lying on their bed, not doing anything, except staring at the emptiness of their life, we should still try to cheer up this guy to work hard in his life so that he can get better by doing activities, though sometimes a disease is incurable.
These are all my arguments and now i look forward to my opponent. Thank you
I accept this debate. Thanks to my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to this.
I will debate that we shouldn't ban euthanasia.
The Definition :
Euthanasia : The act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Murder : At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. (https://www.law.cornell.edu...)
My opponent claims that euthanasia is a murder. I believe it is actually different, because euthanasia will only be done under the agreement of the patient's family, the patient, and thr doctor. I believe no doctor want their patient die, so if a doctor agree to do euthanasia, it must means that the patient have no chance of surviving at all.
"We still don't know whether he still wants to continue to live on his life. Then do you think this is what we should do toward the grandpa?"
Let's put it this way, if the grandpa is so ill that he can't speak, he must have family who put him into the hospital. Then, who's the one paying for his medication ? His family, so if his family is so poor that they can't afford his medication anymore, and the grandpa has no chance of surviving. What is the best solutiin ? Euthanasia. Even if they don't take euthanasia as solution, if they can't afford the bills, the hospital won't treat him anymore.
What if he doesn't have a family ? It'd be practically impossible since he's so ill that he became unable to speak to drag himself to the hospital in this case.
Cheering someone who have lost all hope to live is nearly impossible, it is also possible if the hospital won't do euthanasia, he'd just take his own life. Now, which one is more acceptable ? If my opponent said that it is okay for them, because it is them who take their own life, it means he agree that euthanasia is okay, since they need the patient's approval.
Now, to my arguments.
Euthanasia and Why It Is Acceptable
I'd like to begin with some law about euthanasia.
In December 2013, the Belgian Senate voted in favour of extending its euthanasia law to terminally ill children. Conditions imposed on children seeking euthanasia are that "the patient must be conscious of their decision and understand the meaning of euthanasia", "the request must have been approved by the child's parents and medical team", "their illness must be terminal" and "they must be in great pain, with no available treatment to alleviate their distress". A psychologist must also determine the patient's maturity to make the decision. The amendment emphasizes that the patient's request be voluntary
Euthanasia have so many laws and rules to make sure no one abuse it and to make sure euthanasia is only done to someone who really need them. If you are a parent, do you really want to see your child suffer for years ? Even if they are begging you to let them die ?
Why would someone choose to die ? Imagine, if you're constantly in pain, and your family have to work like a dog to pay your medication, while you havr no chance of recovery. Constant suffering like this is worse than dead.
Also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stated that every human have the right to live. Now, what is right ?
Right is something that is available for you, or an act that is allowed for you. It means, you don't have to take it. You want it ? Okay, that's your right. You don't want to ? No problem either. That's why banning euthanasia actually is an abuse towards human right.
Andrew.T forfeited this round.
Pro has forfeited, vote for con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: POINT 1: Pro states euthanasia is murder. CON rebuts that this does not fit the definition of murder (C1). POINT 2: Pro, Euthanasia is an abuse toward people's life, they need cheering up and urged to get better. Con rebuts that cheering up a person who has no will to live is not possible (C1). Con further states that laws are in place to prevent abuse regarding euthanasia. With no chance of recovery and constant suffering, banning it would be an abuse of a human right. S&G are equal. Conduct point to Con due to Pros forfeit. Sources to Con, Pro did not provide any.
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.