The Instigator
Tim_Spin
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
PartamRuhem
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Tim's debate tournament: Euthanasia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 5 votes the winner is...
PartamRuhem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,809 times Debate No: 17773
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

Tim_Spin

Pro

Full resolution: Voluntary euthanasia should be legalized in the U.S.A.

Rules/ Clarifications

1. Drops will count as concessions.

2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.

3. Burden of proof will be shared.

4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.

5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Argumentation begins in R2.

Definitions

Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient requests that action be taken to end his life, or that life-saving treatment be stopped, with full knowledge that this will lead to his death.[1] My definition does not necessarily make a disctinction between active and passive euthanasia, only that its voluntary on the patients' request.

Should- ought, to be the more ethical consideration.

Legalize- to make legal or lawful

[1] http://www.pregnantpause.org...
PartamRuhem

Con

Good Luck to my opponent. This debate should be very enjoyable indeed.
Debate Round No. 1
Tim_Spin

Pro

Self ownership and prohibition of voluntary euthanasia are at odds.

If self ownership and personal autonomy are to be mantained, one must be given the right to decide when and how they die when it is within their ability and so long as they do not infringe on any other person's rights. This is a straightforward statement. Now I will provide responses to objections against personal autonomy and objections to prohibited euthanasia being at odds with autonomy.

"One does not have the right to self ownership."

This is one of the responses my opponent could bring against my charge that prohibitions against voluntary euthanasia are at odds with personal autonomy. So what? We don't own our bodies anyways. But here my opponent would run into a performative contradiction. For if one can prohibit another form ending their life, one is not only presupposing ownership as a possibility, but also presupposes that a casual observer possesses more of a right to control one's body then does the actual user of the body. Cross-examination: What is the reason that an observer has more right over a body than the one who uses it?

"Prohibition on voluntary euthanasia is not at odds with personal autonomy."

This is the second option my opponent can bring. But to see how it is flawed, we merely need to analyze closer what exactly autonomy is. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines personal autonomy as "to be a law to oneself, autonomous agents, are self-governing agents." In this sense, personal autonomy means that one controls their own body. But how can one argue that not allowing someone to perform an action on their own property that does not infringe on another's property be in line with respect for personal autonomy?

Imagine if I claimed to respect the fact that you own your house. You later try to replace some carpet with tile flooring at some point and I, upon hearing this, do not allow you to do so. Regardless of whether I am right in prohibiting you from doing this, I cannot genuinely argue that I am still respecting your property rights over your house. The same goes for voluntary euthanasia. It does not infringe on another's property and so interfering to stop it is not in respect of one's property rights.

That will be it for this round. In conclusion, prohibitions on voluntary euthanasia, whether active or passive, are in direct contradiction to one's own personal autonomy. I will expand on specific issues that my opponent brings to my arguments in later rounds and also further elaborate on my first point when my opponent answers my cross-examination question.
PartamRuhem

Con

I thank my opponent, and look forward to a great debate. My burden will be to prove that Euthanasia should not be legalized in the U.S.A.

First, a definition of my own
Palliative Care- medical treatment which reduces suffering but does not cure.

I would also like to state that if I show a way for voluntary euthanasia to no longer be desired, then it is sufficient to negating the resolution and would give me the win.

Now I would like to move on to my contentions as to why I think Euthanasia should remain illegal

1. Patients requesting Euthanasia are depressed

90% of terminally ill patients requesting suicide are suffering from depression (http://www.nrlc.org...). Depression, not pain or other physical grief, causes the loss for the desire to live. My opponent claims self ownership must be maintained through Euthanasia, but are these people really themselves? Various studies suggest otherwise, seeing as depression is the villain holding the gun to their heads; is that the more ethical consideration? Euthanizing a patient who is obviously under severe depression? This is debilitating to them, like a cloud over their judgement. "Should" we turn a blind eye and euthanize them anyway? Or should we focus our efforts on curing their depression, and seeing where we can go from there.

The readers may think how to deal with depression in these patients, or if you can. "...it [depression] is not inevitable. It is treatable in many cases...depression is managed with psycho therapeutic intervention, cognitive approaches, and behavioral interventions." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Mostly, the depression can be treated just like anybody else suffereing from depression; the right combination of therapies and drugs, administered properly and openly, will cure depression in these patients. The American Journal of Psychiatry did a study on terminally ill patients, and found the following: "The striking feature of [our] results is that all of the patients who had either desired premature death or contemplated suicide were judged to be suffering from clinical depressive illness; that is, none of those patients who did not have clinical depression had thoughts of suicide or wished that death would come early" (http://www.nrlc.org...) Once the patient is no longer depressed, there will not be thoughts of Euthanasia. Legalizing it would do nothing but provoke these depressed patients to go forward with Euthanasia while there are STILL options lying right in front of them; is that the more ethical consideration? No, not at all. Psychological and medical care, on top of compassionate social support from family and doctors are the appropriate responses to those terminally ill who wish to die.

2. Terminally ill diseases can be properly researched

How great would it be to stop having to see family members go down to terminally ill diseases. For that matter, how long do we all want "terminally ill" diseases around? Medically, and as a societal whole, it is time to move on from these diseases by looking past the simple answer of "Euthanasia", and the only way to do that is to be at "ground zero". Right with a patient with one of these cancers or other diseases is the best way for doctors and researchers to gather conclusive data about the disease and develop progress, like we have before. There were times in the past that certain things were terminal that are no longer such; the plague, tuberculosis, measles, etc. We cured those by doing this exact thing; all of that would be impossible if you flushed it all down the drain with Euthanasia, which in turn would just create more terminal patients, more loved ones dieing needlessly, and more loss of critical data in the development of cures and vaccines for all kinds of these terminal diseases. "One-half of the cancer drugs in the last three years have made it to the market within six months." (http://leda.law.harvard.edu...) This shows progress; within six month we were able to market half of the drugs we were studying, meaning they all had breakthroughs in their research. We are starting to move forward, and we will keep moving forward in this progress if we keep Euthanasia off the minds of the people that are very pivotal in all of these research.
"...that when people have an incurable illness, they should be given palliative care." -Dr. Ravenscroft (http://www.newint.org...)
Palliative care is, as stated before, is a specific type of medical treatment that reduces the suffering in patients, and reduces any thoughts of Euthanasia, as stated before in many studies. In fact, once PC is administered, it becomes much easier to work with the patients and deal with other problems that may develop, such a depression, anxiety, or delirium. But pain isn't what drives most patients to the end. "Various studies suggest that pain is almost never the primary reason for requests for assisted suicide." (http://www.spiked-online.com...) It's the unwillingness to continue on with their current life, which correlates with depression, which I have already given an answer for.

|Conclusion|
Through multiple points, I show now sufficient ethical reason to legalize Euthanasia, and even show that most, if not all patients, if treated properly, would take back an assisted suicide request, thus negating the resolution. It's not in anyone's best interests to legalize Euthanasia, especially since at this point it would be suicide, but also because of the other lives that are being lost because of terminal diseases. According to Tommy Thompson, former Secretary of the Department of health and human services, "approximately 550,000 Americans are expected to die of cancer annually, translating into roughly 1,500 deaths per day, and a quarter of all deaths annually, caused by various forms of the destructive disease." The only way we can slow this number down, and eventually stop it all together, is to keep the very vital hosts of such diseases now alive and well. It wouldn't be right for them to be Euthanized and set this research back god knows how long, or how many years, or how many Americans need to die because of it. Which is the more ethical consideration? The choice, at this point, is very clear and easy. Euthanasia should not be legalized.
Debate Round No. 2
Tim_Spin

Pro

I would first like to point out that my points have gone unchallenged by my opponent. He does not deny that laws against voluntary euthanasia are completely at odds with personal autonomy or that the user of ones body has more of a right to control it than a casual observer(at the very least he has shown no reason why a casual observer has the positive right to restrict consensual activities that do not harm others). My opponent has on the other hand decided that no one has enough reason to want to request voluntary euthanasia and so it should be outlawed. Even so, I shall negate each of his points accordingly.

1. Patients requesting Euthanasia are depressed

My opponent claims that 90% of patients requesting euthanasia are depressed and that because they are depressed, they are not capable of deciding whether they should live or die. But as I asked previously, why does a casual observer have more of a right to tell one when one can or cannot die than the one who actually possesses the body? The right to self ownership is inalienable. That is, unless it is exchanged away just like any other piece of property whether through mutual exchange or gift. To try to deprive a person of self ownership is thus thievery and immoral.

Furthermore, my opponent's source allegedly showing that 90% of patients requesting assisted suicide are depressed was not from a medical journal or website. It was from an editorial by the USA Today from 1993. No medical source was provided. I checked a few different anti-euthanasia websites for a link to the actual article but none was ever provided. So unless my opponent can provide a credible medical source for the level of depression among terminally ill patients being 90%, I will argue that we should not only dismiss this statistic fully, but also move on to focus on those terminally ill patients who request suicide who are not clinically depressed.

When looking for credible statistics on euthanasia, it is best to look to places where it is either fully or partially legalized. The Netherlands and the U.S. state, Oregon are some examples. A study by the Oxford Journal of Medicine on the relationship between depression and explicit requests for euthanasia among end of life cancer patients, showed that "Major depression was not a major factor in explicit requests for euthanasia in end-of-life cancer patients in primary care. Further depressed mood was not associated with explicitly requesting euthanasia in this patient group". The patients surveyed were incurable cancer patients with less than a year of life expectancy left. In studies on the subject, there has yet been no clear link shown between incurably ill patients requesting euthanasia and suffering from clinical depression.

2. Terminally ill diseases can be properly researched

Here my opponent argues that because some currently incurable diseases have shown some promise in research and time expected to market drugs, patients should not be allowed to end their own lives. However the estimated wait time for a cure to most terminal illnesses(Certain types of cancer, AIDS, Sarcoidosis) is in the decades, not the single digit years or months that many terminally ill patients have left to live. A cure for every terminal illness is not even close to feasible in the next hundred years. So should patients all over the world who have only a few years to live, or even a few months to live be forced to go through their pain because in a hundred years, a better treatment might come into existence? This still all secondary in that one would still have the right to end their lives with a cure. One controls their own body and ending one's life for whatever reason they want cannot be morally regulated if it is not infringing on another's rights. My opponent can try to bring out reasons why one does not need to commit suicide all he wants but the fact remains that personal autonomy cannot be upheld with any restrictions on one's right to end their life.



PartamRuhem

Con

I would like to start by stating that I wasn't ignoring my opponents points in the second round, but simply following my precedent of debate procedure; that is, to post my initial argument in the second round and then move on to refutations and elaborations in the third round. Let the reader know that I am not skipping over my opponents point, and will address it further on in this round.

Speaking of my opponent's points, I would also like to point out that he is only using really one contention, the other being a different way to say the same thing. I.E. personal autonomy should be maintained by the individual and the user of ones body has more of a right to control it than a casual observer. These are one in the same, and should only be counted as one point. Also, my opponent doesn't even strengthen his "second" point, being that "the user of ones body has more of a right to control it than a casual observer", but simply states his opinions. Let all opinions I point out of my opponents from this point on be discarded, for they are irrelevant.

1. Patients requesting Euthanasia are depressed.
My opponent tries to negate my contention by, again, bringing up his point that self ownership is inalienable. Furthermore, he tries making my facts irrelevant by saying that my source was not a medical journal, website, or other medically associated source. I will show how both of these attacks fall, and why this point stands.

A. Self-Ownership is inalienable- Pro tries to state that since every person has the right to their own body, it doesn't matter that they are depressed, but since they want to be Euthanized, they should. My opponent, however, seriously misjudges my actually point I am trying to make to the reader. This depression that is found in patients can be compared to a dark cloud over their minds; their judgement of what THEY as a PERSON actually want is completely fogged and they have no real motive for wanting to be Euthanized. I'm not saying that I, as a casual observer, think they wouldn't have a reason. More so I, and many medical experts believe that they wouldn't want to continue with being Euthanized after they were cured of this depression. But, unlike my opponent, I wont just state my opinion, but use fact to show why this is correct. "Advocates of physician-assisted suicide try to convey the impression that in terminally ill patients the wish to die is totally different from suicidal intent in those without terminal illness. However, like other suicidal individuals, patients who desire an early death during a terminal illness are usually suffering from a treatable mental illness, most commonly a depressive condition. Strikingly, the overwhelming majority of the terminally ill fight for life to the end. Some may voice suicidal thoughts in response to transient depression or severe pain, but these patients usually respond well to treatment for depressive illness and pain medication and are grateful to be alive." ( H. Hendin and G. Klerman, "Physician-assisted Suicide: The Dangers of Legalization", American Journal of Psychiatry).

On top of these facts, and a completely medical source..."A study of hospice patients who were terminally ill 'found that the majority of terminally ill patients did not want to die; and all who desired death were suffering from major depression. Many other studies have reached the same conclusion: terminally ill individuals who choose to have their lives ended make the choice because they are suffering from depression, not because they are suffering from a particular terminal illness.'" Affidavit of Nancy J. Osgood, Ph.D., Medical College of Virginia. Patients respond WELL to being treated, and will, as stated above, cease desires for euthanasia after they are cured. However, it's not easy to spot depression early on in patients, leading to all these patients wanting to be euthanized, and if the depression builds, it could become too late. Therefore, I advocate that instead of legalizing euthanasia, we train doctors and psychiatrists more in the ways of finding depression in those who are terminally ill and actually test these patients more often for such mind-clouding conditions."The American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association agree 'most physicians fail to recognize depression, thereby precluding the opportunity for effective treatment."' (http://www.nightingalealliance.org...) My opponent states that places where Euthanasia are legalized are prime hunting ground for statistics. Well, let's take a look at Oregon real quick, one of the places my opponent mentioned. In accordance to the American Journal of Psychiatry..."In a survey of Oregon psychiatrists, only 6% felt very confident that, absent a long-term relationship with a patient, that they could satisfactorily determine in a single visit if a patient was competent to commit suicide." On top of this, "In Oregon's first three years of legalized assisted suicide, only 29% of patients received any psychiatric examination before being given a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs." Doctor's aren't even testing all the patients for depression, basically handing out the death drugs like candy. Are they doing their job correctly, upholding the doctor's oath, if they aren't even checking all possible alternatives that a patient would be requesting euthanasia for? This is a problem, and will only spread to all the other states and families of loved ones if euthanasia is legalized.

Finally, we can take a look at the study my opponent cited by the Oxford Journal of Medicine. Upon taking a closer look, we can see that the study consisted of only 76 patients. Of those, only 17 requested Euthanasia. Upon even CLOSER looks, we see that of these 17, 47%(8) were depressed. Are these the kind of numbers we want to legalize something off of? 8 patients?? The study he cited said ITSELF "Further depressed mood was not associated with explicitly requesting euthanasia in this patient group, ALTHOUGH STATISTICALLY UNDER POWER CANNOT BE RULED OUT IN THIS SMALL SAMPLE." I apologize for the emphasis with the use of capital letters, but I don't know how to bold the letters, which would have been preferred.
Lastly, I would like to point out that my opponent states that the right to self ownership is inalienable. Why then does every male in the United States at the age of 18 have to sing up for "selective service", where he signs over his body to the U.S. government in the time of war. After that, your body isn't your own, for you cannot end your life (which isn't allowed anyway) or decide not to fight, for you will be persecuted and arrested. This, on top of everything else stated, invalidates my opponents refutation and leaves my point standing.

2. Terminally ill diseases can be properly researched

Pro gives NO sources or facts to back up his statements that these drugs won't develop for decades to come, while I have given fact stating that these drugs are in development, and I will reiterate that fact. "One-half of the cancer drugs in the last three years have made it to the market within six months." This is progress, which my opponent blatantly ignores. "Clinical trials involving patients with cancer are "the requisite path for our advances" in cancer research" (http://leda.law.harvard.edu...)

|Conclusion|
Now, I have two standing points, while my opponent has none, for he has given no reason/fact/source that strengthens his point, and has actually only really stated a couple sentence in regard to it, while he decides to focus on attacking my points. Within my refutations, I have actually countered my opponents personal autonomy argument, stating that after proper methods are implemented, patients won't want Euthanasia. Why would we legalize something that would hinder medical research and end human life? It would be all too easy for doctors, like in Oregon, to just hand out the pil
Debate Round No. 3
Tim_Spin

Pro

I feel like my opponent misunderstand what I wrote. I never claimed that I had made two distinct points. In the beginning of my opening case, I bolded the statement that personal autonomy and prohibition on euthanasia were at odds. I then proceeded to respond to two objections that one could bring to that statement, namely that they are not at odds or that we do not have personal autonomy to begin with.

Before I move on to refuting my opponent's points I will defend my own standing point that one cannot respect another's personal autonomy while denying them the right to end their lives when they wish to. The only evidence my opponent brings to the contrary is that "every male in the United States at the age of 18 have to sing up for "selective service", where he signs over his body to the U.S. government in the time of war."

Put simply, the argument against personal autonomy goes that because one group regularly violates it, it never really existed. Imagine for a moment that a man steals your wallet from your packet. You promptly wrestle with him to get it back and as you do this he repeats over and over, "What's wrong? That guy over there just got mugged too! Everyone has their rights violated and things stolen so we must have never had those rights or property to begin with!" Would any person in their right mind agree with this?

Furthermore, in my original argument, I asked my opponent why he thought that a casual observer had more of a right to another's body then they did, providing that you are not hurting anyone else with your body. I searched through my opponent's round and found no answer. He only continued the mantra that no one in their right mind would want to die when they don't have to and so patients requesting euthanasia should be stripped of the right. But now on to my opponent's case.

Patients requesting euthanasia are depressed.

My opponent writes that "I, and many medical experts believe that they wouldn't want to continue being Euthanized after they were curedof this depression." But why is this even relevant? I am not arguing that it is wise to request euthanasia. I have never been terminally ill or in immense pain to want that. I am arguing that even if someone's decision could be harmful to themselves in the long run, no one has any right to stop them, so long as they do not hurt other's in the course of killing themselves.

Furthermore, I can wholy concede that the majority of euthanasia requesting patients are clinically depressed and still be in the right. It is because of the classification of depression as compared to other mental disorders. Depression, while having serious effects at times, is not the same as schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders where people cannot always be held responsible for their actions.

If depression-afflicted patients can really not be allowed to make decisions regarding their own persona affairs, then we must also barr depressed patients from making other life decisions that they would not make in their right minds such as getting married, having children, or choosing a career. What is the difference. In both cases, I might disagree with their choice and so I use the fact that they suffer from a mood disorder to control their own private actions.

On a further note, the fact that my opponent tried to use the fact that people's personal autonomy is already violated by the government makes his main point completely unnecessary. He writes that "After that, your body isn't your own, for you cannot end your life(which isn't allowed anyway) or decide not to fight, for you will be persecuted and arrested."

Notice that in the darkened part of the sentence, my opponent mentions that it is already illegal to end one's life. So by his own rationale against personal autonomy(that the military alrady violates it), his main point is made completely irrelevant. For if the draft proves we are not autonomous agents then the fact that suicide is illegal further show that we have no right to kill ourselves regardless of our psychological state. So my opponent must either drop his main point(which doesn't help his case anyways since it doesn't autonomy supersedes mental condition) or drop his argument against personal autonomy(which would again make his first point irrelevant).

Terminally ill diseases can be properly researched.

My opponent argues that I did not provide reason for one to believe that terminal diseases would not be cured for decades to come. But of course, as this is his own point, the onus is on him to show why terminally ill patients will start being cured before they die of their disease. His two sources were the fact that over 1/2 of cancer drugs in the last few years have made it to the market within half a year(irrelevant since I am talking about cures for these diseases, not something to help the pin or slightly elongate their life) and the fact that clinical trials are needed for cures or treatments to be found.

On this last point I do agree. Drugs need to be tested before they can be administered but I do not see how this point is relevant. My opponent brought no evidence to suggest that all or even the majority of terminally ill patients would request physician assisted suicide. Patients who do wish to live and keep on fighting would no doubt volunteer for clinical trials as they do now. Legalizing euthanasia would not automatically make them suicidal.

My opponent ends by asking why something that "would hinder medical research and end human life"? Of course my opponent brought zero evidence to suggest that the legalization of euthanasia would make all terminally ill patients suicidal. Also, this particular life ending practice is not the same as murder or even abortion. This is a wholly voluntary act by someone who surely has the right more than anyone. My opponent's only reason why they be able to is because they are not in their right mind and so are incapable of making decisions. But do we take away depressed people's licenses? Do we allow them to marry, to have children, to live just like the rest of us? If my opponent wishes to counter this, he must drop his faulty rationale of mental incompetence and concede that his main point has been completely refuted.

I urge voters to see past my opponent's argument that the depressed cannot properly make life decisions or that we're right on the verge of curing terminal diseases. We must accept that people have the right to kill themselves, whether we agree with the decision or not and that legalizing euthanasia is not going to cause every terminal patient to end their lives. My opponent has brought no valid reason to either show that prohibition of euthanasia can coexist wih personal autonomy or that I have more of a right over your body than you do.
PartamRuhem

Con

Starting off this debate with Tim Spin, I had much anticipation and eagerness for an intellectual challenge; he did not let me down, and I thank my opponent for that on top of letting me into this tournament. I also what to thank everyone who took the time to read this debate and judge it, for your role is vital in these debates.

I would like to start this debate by stating that my opponent admitted to only having one contention. This means that on a point by point basis, I have won this debate already, for I have more points that are left standing then he does. This is because my points refute his point of personal autonomy to an extent, for if a doctor realizes that a patient is under the strain of depression, they would NEVER allow for euthanasia to be administered to that patient, no matter what my opponent states about personal autonomy. Saving a human life is the primary goal of physicians, and they deal with the depressed no different. So already, I have more points left then my opponent. But I will go into great detail in defending my own and attacking further my opponents point. Also, my opponent dropped trying to argue that depression isn't found in almost all patients requesting euthanasia, admitting his was wrong. If he was wrong about one thing, he is likely to be wrong about another.

My opponent suggests that everyone has every right to their body, so long as they don't infringe on others rights. I disproved his point further by stating selective service takes this right away. This means that this right never existed in the way my opponent claims, which is COMPLETE control of themselves whenever. If the government has decided that it is in the best interests of this country to take your body for military service, then that violates personal autonomy; yet I see no protests, no evidence on my opponents parts suggesting what the government is doing is wrong, just a metaphor that is a little over the top. So if this isn't wrong, it isn't wrong to infringe this supposed right again for the sake of that person's life and the lives of others; this is an almost identical reason to that of selective service. Every patient helps further our research against these terminal killers, and by taking ones life, you are flushing all that potentiality down the drain.

Depression
I would like the reader to understand that on this very day, people in Oregon are being euthanized who actually don't want to be. Depression is very motivating for one to commit suicide or be euthanized; everything feels hopeless. Yet my opponent says that it's ok, because they said they wanted it, no matter the state they were in. Let me give the reader a metaphor of my own; a man with an arrow sticking out of his chest, bleeding profusely, is rushed to the emergency room by family, but he is in a haze because of the shock. He tells the doctors to leave it in, that he wants to die and doesn't care, but his family is insisting the doctor save their beloved father/husband. Would that doctor really put down his tools and say "Sorry, the man wants to die. Oh well, just another day" or would he perform the surgery and save the man's life? It's obviously the latter of the two, because a doctor has an oath he must uphold. If he were to let the man die, that family could sue that doctor and win. Yet, my opponent still insists that the doctor made the right decision? This helps my case for two reasons. It is clear that personal autonomy isn't something that everyone should just obey like the law or should allow to have such leverage over people, for this situation would be one of many that would be acceptable, and according to my opponent, for some reason that's ok. Also, this man can be compared to someone with depression, except the only difference is the doctor can't see the arrow. Depression is a very confusing condition for physicians, and it must be treated with the utmost care, or mistakes will happen that have been happening in places like Oregon, where Euthanasia is already legalized.

My opponent tries stating that depression isn't the same as other diseases that control a person's actions; this is, again, just his opinion against the opinions of medical experts that I have previously quoted and sourced. Let the reader make no mistake, depression is an extremely serious variable that MUST be taken into account with all terminally ill patients.

When speaking on depressed patients, my opponent starts to actually classify them as a group that we all know about and act around; depression can strike anyone at anytime, and isn't taken lightly. Pro tries stating that if depressed patients don't have the right to personal autonomy, then they shouldn't have the right to driving, marriage, career paths, etc. However, the fact remains that once a physician or trained psychiatrist catches on to an individual's depression, they take extreme measures, involving therapy and medicine, to cure this depression. There is no need to limit a depressed person's actions because medical experts would cure said depression if they would know about it, because they know how dangerous it can be to a person who, without it, would be completely normal and capable of making proper decisions.

My opponent then claims that my main point is irrelevant due to selective service and suicide being illegal, but I fail to see how my opponent makes this connection or how this invalidates my argument. If anything, it hurts my opponents argument and should be taken as such by the reader, for he stated himself that "...the fact that suicide is illegal further show that we have no right to kill ourselves regardless of our psychological state." He states right here that we have no right to kill our self, completely invalidating his argument which is that we have complete right to kill ourselves. I really don't see how this hurts my position that I stand for on this debate topic.

Research
I would like to note that my opponent hasn't refuted this point at all , for he just gives opinion as to why research might take too long. My opponent then says "show why terminally ill patients will start being cured before they die of their disease. " I never said that I would be proving this, but proving that these patients give way to research that can cure these diseases in the future. The source I cited earlier, http://leda.law.harvard.edu... , in depth shows why these patients are crucial in medical research of these diseases, but I'm not going to sit here and bring up more info that my opponent can't retort. Another thing my opponent stated that is interesting was in response to my ending of round three, about euthanasia hindering medical research and ending human life. He tries saying that legalizing euthanasia would not make patients suicidal, but they would die none-the-less, and these deaths, at this point, we can all see would be pointless.

| Conclusion |
I have proved that both my contentions are left standing due to a lack of evidence on Pro's part and the fact that personal autonomy has it's limits. If Euthanasia were to be legalized, so many people would die needlessly to a monster called depression. Or is that monster Euthanasia, just reached by the efforts of depression? Either way, my case against Euthanasia is sound and stands on all fronts. Throughout this debate, I have proved through a plethora of sources and medical opinions, why my contentions are right and fully relevant to the topic while my opponent only suggests his opinions and a source (the oxford source which can be found in the comments) which was completely invalid after exposed it. My opponent then realized this, and dropped the source all together, trying to get the reader to forget yet another mistake on his part. We deal with the depressed by treating them, the terminally ill should be no different.

Thank you Tim_Spin, and I thank the reader.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by BlackVoid 3 years ago
BlackVoid
I don't really buy the Research argument. Pro basically proves that there won't be cures in time to benefit patients today, and Con never shows when we can actually expect anything more than pain remedies. A cure for depression will probably come before a cure for cancer anyway.

Con really strengthened the depression argument with the bow and arrow example. That was a really good argument that tied in with the depression argument petty well, since the patient has clouded judgment in both cases.

Con, I do suggest not writing so many mega-paragraphs. Try to chop them up to more smaller ones. But otherwise, great debate.
Posted by seraine 3 years ago
seraine
Looks like you can't bold in the comments...
Posted by seraine 3 years ago
seraine
Nice debate so far. Partam, two quick tips. To bold, go "<"strong"> hi <"/strong"> " (no quotation marks). <strong> hi </strong>

A better way to do sources.

1: The war on drugs costs 53.3 billion a year.

www.hi.com

2: The war on drugs costs 53.3 billion a year[1].

Moar stuff.

Sources

[1] www.hi.com

The second way makes for much easier reading (in my opinion). Basically, have your sources like Tim's.
Posted by Tim_Spin 3 years ago
Tim_Spin
http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org...
Source for the Oxford study I quoted.
Posted by PartamRuhem 3 years ago
PartamRuhem
cool
Posted by Tim_Spin 3 years ago
Tim_Spin
I'll have a response in a day or two. I'm at school right now.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Thrasymachus 3 years ago
Thrasymachus
Tim_SpinPartamRuhemTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Good stuff. Con confuses is with ought too often - personal autonomy might not be irrebuttable, but citing that other people violate it does not defeat the claim. Ditto the "Doctors wouldnt euthanasize depressed patients". Pro (just about) dealt with the depression issue by (rightly) stating depression doesn't remove capacity, so undercuts the depressed 'wouldn't want to die'. Cons research argument was weak. A few missed moves by both sides.
Vote Placed by seraine 3 years ago
seraine
Tim_SpinPartamRuhemTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument on depression was what took this debate for me. However, I feel that the self-autonomy argument was not quite fully refuted, and the research argument was kind of a flop. 3:1 Con
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 3 years ago
quarterexchange
Tim_SpinPartamRuhemTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: I initially agreed with autonomy argument on face value, yet con was simply very convincing especially with the argument regarding the fact that most people who want to commit suicide are depressed and that depression undoubtedly tampers someone's good judgement. The fact that many psychs can't tell if someone is depressed and in sound mind to make the decision to commit suicide is frightening as well. I don't feel the self ownership argument was adequate to refute this.
Vote Placed by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
Tim_SpinPartamRuhemTied
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: Good debate. A key factor missing from this debate is the implementation of euthanasia being argued. State of mind is a common consideration in our law considering the rights of hospitalized patients to make their own decisions and it would obviously be considered. Pro would have had my vote if he brought this up but he did not. Without that point, Cons argument that keeping euthanasia illegal would protect more patients then it harms stands.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 3 years ago
BlackVoid
Tim_SpinPartamRuhemTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con honestly changed my opinion on this. I think Tim's autonomy argument is correct, but the big issue is that he never answers the argument about depressed patients not being themselves. As con put it, depression is a "Dark cloud" over your head which distorts your thoughts and decisions-making. Tim is right in saying that patients can do what they want, but its established that euthanasia isnt a decision the patient makes, its one their distorted judgment makes. More coming in comments.