The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
liberty
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Topic that was agreed upon in a message

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,256 times Debate No: 5247
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

For those who don't know the topic is Euthanasia. I am for euthanasia and my opponent is against euthanasia.

I will post three contentions

1. Euthanasia furthers human rights
As a human being, I have a fundamental right to liberty. This means that I should be allowed to do anything I choose to that does not infringe on the rights of others. This is why I can get my hair cut however I want, I can live in whatever kind of house I want (assuming I have the money to do so), I can play sports, I can get an interesting (or not so interesting) job. Basically anything that doesn't hurt others is guaranteed to me by this right (in theory). Euthanasia, the conscious decision of a terminally ill person to have their life ended early to avoid more suffering is one of these rights. It does not harm anyone else, because I will soon die anyways, and the only thing that does not transpire because of my choice is the massive pain and suffering in the last days. If it does not harm anyone, it must be a right of mine, which means that we should be in favor of euthanasia.

2. Euthanasia is consistent with utilitarianism
Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory of morality that holds that people should follow the principle of utility, that is, the principle that our actions should maximize happiness and minimize pain. I won't go into the many benefits of utilitarianism, but I will say that it is the only rational theory of morality, in that any other theory would hold that it is possible for an action that causes more unhappiness than happiness is right, which is absurd. The terminally ill person has little happiness and much unhappiness in front of them. In order to maximize happiness and minimize pain, we should euthanize them in order to save them from the intense unhappiness later.

3. Euthanasia is often necessary
Imagine you are driving on the highway, and suddenly, the driver of the tractor trailer ahead of you loses control, and drives his truck through the guard rail. You stop your car and run down to see if he's okay. You find him 10 yards away, with laceration all over his body, and some obviously broken limbs. He is going to die soon, within the hour. At this point he has enough strength to say "There's a revolver in the cab, kill me now, stop the pain, ugh..." The only merciful and the only moral course of action would be to go to the cab and take the revolver and shoot him. This is exactly what euthanasia is. It is required by mercy and by morality.
liberty

Con

To avoid confusions, the resolution is the following:

Resolved: Voluntary Euthanasia Should Be Legal.

I negate



Euthanasia:
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 (Merriam-Webster)

Voluntary Euthanasia:
Those instances of euthanasia in which a clearly competent person makes a voluntary and enduring request to be helped to die. (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy)

Legal:
One that conforms to rules or the law (Merriam-Webster)

Should:
A moral obligation



Contention 1: Miracles Occur!
Over the years we have experienced many "miracles" in medicine, many people, even in very recent years and months, who were expected to die, miraculously survived. If these people were to have been subjected to Euthanasia they would be dead now. These incidents have taught us to never lose hope and euthanasia is the very symbol of hopelessness.

Contention 2: Hippocratic Oath
Traditionally, doctors swear an oath when they receive their medical degree. This oath includes the phrase "I shall do no harm"; proposing suicide is a direct violation of that oath.

Contention 3: Religion
My opponent and I are Christians. The vast majority of churches and church bodies, object to Euthanasia. They do so, because Christians believe that "God gave us life and God should be the one to take it away". This amongst others, means that no human should have the power of life and death. This is especially true in the case of doctors that may be pessimistic at points and can easily be influenced by third parties, such as health insurance companies (that want to avoid extra funds for treatment being wasted and apply Euthanasia).

Contention 4: Pessimism
Certain patients, doctors and family may be pessimistic. For example if you tell a patient that he will die in three months because of some disease and that the pain will gradually increase, until he/she dies. This might make them pessimistic and because they might fear the pain, they might choose to be mercy killed in order to avoid it. This will eliminate all slim chances of survival and rob the pessimistic patient of his/her last days with the people he/she loves.



Contention 1: Euthanasia furthers human rights
My opponent states that it is a human's right to decide to be killed when terminally ill. I agree with this to a certain point. First of all, certain things may effect the patient's and the doctor's judgment. Some examples of this are: pessimism, fear of pain and hopelessness in the case of the patient. Pressure to have funds and treatment rooms cleared for other patient, by hospitals and influence and bribes from health insurance companies (that to avoid extra funds for treatment being wasted and apply Euthanasia) for doctors. The above proves that doctor and patient may make mistakes in judgment that will result in the patient to be subjected to Euthanasia, and since death is irreversible possible mistakes can not be recalled. In conclusion, we might have the right to euthanasia, but we many times be wrong in our judgment and situations like the one explained in my 4th contention may occur, that may cost us our lives (in the worst scenario) or are last days with our family and friends (in the best).

Contention 2: Euthanasia is consistent with utilitarianism.
True, it is consistent in a way, but utilitarianism is nothing but a philosophical theory and there are many contradictory theories that prove that Euthanasia is immoral. In philosophy you usually can't say that something is wrong of right. For example utilitarianism is no more right or wrong than the philosophical theory of egoism. So, Euthanasia may be consistent with ONE philosophical point of view, utilitarianism [type of consequentialism], but it is contradictory to virtue ethics and deontological ethics as well as some types of consequentialism. Therefore, my opponent's point proves little.

Contention 3: Euthanasia is often necessary.
My opponent tries to prove his pint by providing one example. In the specific example (dying driver), the right course of action (morally and legally) is to call an ambulance and get him to the hospital and perhaps his life will be saved. Therefore, my opponent's example lacks moral and legal judgment and devalues life and science (medicine), by losing hope to soon and not giving medicine a chance to save a life, (even if chances are that it won 't succeed, the huge value of a human life still makes it worth it!).

I reserve the right to make other contentions in the following Rounds

Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"Over the years we have experienced many "miracles" in medicine, many people, even in very recent years and months, who were expected to die, miraculously survived. If these people were to have been subjected to Euthanasia they would be dead now. These incidents have taught us to never lose hope and euthanasia is the very symbol of hopelessness."

They do. Sometimes. If I have a one in a million chance of survival if I jump out of a plane at 30000 feet, without a parachute (someone has survived this), it doesn't mean it is okay because there MIGHT be a miracle. Yes, miracles occur, but the thing that makes it a miracle is that it almost never happens. If miracles always happened they wouldn't be miracles. Otherwise every time I recover from a cold, I would be praising the Lord for something insignificant. Anyways, miracles usually only happen to those with extreme faith. These people would most likely not take advantage of euthanasia, and let the Lord take care of them.

" Traditionally, doctors swear an oath when they receive their medical degree. This oath includes the phrase 'I shall do no harm'; proposing suicide is a direct violation of that oath."

Make the nurse do it. Seriously we should not let a silly oath written by some dude who died 3000 years ago prevent us from doing the right thing. The right thing is to let a person have control over their own life, and let them end it when they want.

"My opponent and I are Christians. The vast majority of churches and church bodies, object to Euthanasia. They do so, because Christians believe that 'God gave us life and God should be the one to take it away'. This amongst others, means that no human should have the power of life and death. This is especially true in the case of doctors that may be pessimistic at points and can easily be influenced by third parties, such as health insurance companies (that want to avoid extra funds for treatment being wasted and apply Euthanasia)."

Churches are wrong sometimes. Churches have also justified slavery, the Spanish Inquisition, and many other unfortunate events. Furthermore, the separation of church and state means that what churches think shouldn't affect policy. We are not forcing them to use euthanasia, a religious person can certainly let the Lord handle things.

"Certain patients, doctors and family may be pessimistic. For example if you tell a patient that he will die in three months because of some disease and that the pain will gradually increase, until he/she dies. This might make them pessimistic and because they might fear the pain, they might choose to be mercy killed in order to avoid it. This will eliminate all slim chances of survival and rob the pessimistic patient of his/her last days with the people he/she loves."

It is the patient's choice. If he or she wants to die, we can't interfere simply because a doctor may be a pessimist. Also, we could write into the law that they must consult more than one doctor. This contention can be avoided by a euthanasia law if we want it to.

"My opponent states that it is a human's right to decide to be killed when terminally ill. I agree with this to a certain point. First of all, certain things may effect the patient's and the doctor's judgment. Some examples of this are: pessimism, fear of pain and hopelessness in the case of the patient. Pressure to have funds and treatment rooms cleared for other patient, by hospitals and influence and bribes from health insurance companies (that to avoid extra funds for treatment being wasted and apply Euthanasia) for doctors. The above proves that doctor and patient may make mistakes in judgment that will result in the patient to be subjected to Euthanasia, and since death is irreversible possible mistakes can not be recalled. In conclusion, we might have the right to euthanasia, but we many times be wrong in our judgment and situations like the one explained in my 4th contention may occur, that may cost us our lives (in the worst scenario) or are last days with our family and friends (in the best)."

We can get multiple opinions like I said. The more people involved the less corrupt it will be. There is a workable solution to this issue without banning euthanasia.

"True, it is consistent in a way, but utilitarianism is nothing but a philosophical theory and there are many contradictory theories that prove that Euthanasia is immoral. In philosophy you usually can't say that something is wrong of right. For example utilitarianism is no more right or wrong than the philosophical theory of egoism. So, Euthanasia may be consistent with ONE philosophical point of view, utilitarianism [type of consequentialism], but it is contradictory to virtue ethics and deontological ethics as well as some types of consequentialism. Therefore, my opponent's point proves little."

My opponent is incorrect. The whole purpose of philosophy is to disprove theories and find new ones. The goal of a philosopher is to seek the truth. Utilitarianism is a superior theory, as not following it would result in more bad than good occurring. It is common sense to say that we should have as much good as possible. That's basically what utilitarianism says.

"My opponent tries to prove his pint by providing one example. In the specific example (dying driver), the right course of action (morally and legally) is to call an ambulance and get him to the hospital and perhaps his life will be saved. Therefore, my opponent's example lacks moral and legal judgment and devalues life and science (medicine), by losing hope to soon and not giving medicine a chance to save a life, (even if chances are that it won 't succeed, the huge value of a human life still makes it worth it!)."

My opponent would let a dying man suffer longer than necessary. There is absolutely no hope in this man's survival. Is it just to let him suffer needlessly?
liberty

Con

"They do. Sometimes. If I have a one in a million chance of survival if I jump out of a plane at 30000 feet, without a parachute (someone has survived this), it doesn't mean it is okay because there MIGHT be a miracle. Yes, miracles occur, but the thing that makes it a miracle is that it almost never happens. If miracles always happened they wouldn't be miracles. Otherwise every time I recover from a cold, I would be praising the Lord for something insignificant. Anyways, miracles usually only happen to those with extreme faith. These people would most likely not take advantage of euthanasia, and let the Lord take care of them."

> My opponent misses the point of my argument. Even if 100 people are saved in total in the next 5 years, it is still worth it. This is because of the huge value of human life. I use the word miracle in a metaphorical way, to explain something improbable, ‘miraculous' recoveries happen a lot more often than my opponent believes, they may be highly improbable but not extremely rare either. ‘Miracles', especially in medicine can happen to anyone, even to those without faith, therefore my opponents last point does not stand. So, we should always have faith in science and never devalue the worth of a single human life, let alone numerous.

"Make the nurse do it. Seriously we should not let a silly oath written by some dude who died 3000 years ago prevent us from doing the right thing. The right thing is to let a person have control over their own life, and let them end it when they want."

> An oath is an oath and after you make it (either it is right or wrong to do so) morality dictates that you should follow it.
> The point that the nurse could perform the action is not accurate because it is the doctor who ultimately decides if the patient is on fact terminally ill.
> The Hippocratic oath, is still made today by doctors (although it is not obligatory), because it summarises the basic ethic rules of medicine and its meaning is said to be true today as it was 2500 years ago, despite the evolution of medicine. Also, people who swear an oath have a moral obligation to obey it and doctors understand that in most cases. For example doctors who swear the oath are a much less likely to perform abortion.

"Churches are wrong sometimes. Churches have also justified slavery, the Spanish Inquisition, and many other unfortunate events. Furthermore, the separation of church and state means that what churches think shouldn't affect policy. We are not forcing them to use euthanasia; a religious person can certainly let the Lord Handle things."

> Just because they were wrong in the past doesn't mean they will always be wrong. Also, church has evolved a lot today and has gained a reputation over the past few of supporting morality.
> My opponent fails to refute the point that we should not give the power over life and death should not be given to a human, especially a doctor, who can easily be influenced by third parties. Therefore extend it.
> It would be hypocritical by doctors who claim to fully support church to contradict it by applying Euthanasia. If a doctor does in fact chose to follow the church and not support Euthanasia, he would have to obey the law and go against his beliefs, which leads us to the next point that may be irrelevant from the argument of my opponent, but should be taken into consideration as an argument of its own, because as I said in Round 1, I reserve the right to make other conention.

Contention 6: What of the doctors who would object to Euthanasia?
If a doctor refuses to support Euthanasia (many don't), 1. He/She would either have to go against his/her beliefs in order to keep their patients and money that they offer, this goes against liberty that my opponent claims to be supporting. 2. He/She would provide false opinions on the patient's conditioning in for them not to be subjected to Euthanasia. 3. He/She would have to give up their patient (and money from the treatment), to a doctor who supports Euthanasia just in case at some point of the treatment such an action is considered necessary, this is discrimination based on beliefs. In conclusion the affirmative would cause general problems in healthcare, this is already happening to some degree in the northern countries of Europe (strikes and objections from certain doctors), although sadly most doctors who object to Euthanasia chose to put their financial interest over their beliefs and shut their mouth in return for cash.

"It is the patient's choice. If he or she wants to die, we can't interfere simply because a doctor may be a pessimist. Also, we could write into the law that they must consult more than one doctor. This contention can be avoided by a euthanasia law if we want it to."

> Yes it is the patient's choice, but my opponent misses the point of my contention, I says that certain psychological factors (e.g. pessimism) effect the patient's choice and with his own consent may rob him of his last months of life and potential (although improbable recovery), my opponent's point is completely irrelevant and if one thing works on the negative, because he agrees that it is the patient's choice to die and we can not interfere and if his choice is wrong (due to his bad psychological condition) we still cannot prevent a wrong action because it is the patient's choice. Therefore, extend this point.
> The law my opponent is proposing (consulting two doctors) is not practical. First of all it would be huge waste of man hours to have two doctors to supervise a patient that is most probably going to die anyway. This is especially true in crowded hospital, were other patients that have a better chance for their lives to be saved need care and the doctors usually aren't enough.
> Finally, I ask my opponent to present his proposed law so we can discuss it.

"We can get multiple opinions like I said. The more people involved the less corrupt it will be. There is a workable solution to this issue without banning euthanasia."

> My opponent's claim of 2 doctors has already been addressed as a non-realistic solution.
>My opponent respond to this point by repeating his previous point and stating that there also solutions, that he does not present.
> I ask my opponent to present his solution(s), so it can be discussed.

"My opponent is incorrect. The whole purpose of philosophy is to disprove theories and find new ones. The goal of a philosopher is to seek the truth. Utilitarianism is a superior theory, as not following it would result in more bad than good occurring. It is common sense to say that we should have as much good as possible. That's basically what utilitarianism says."

Philosophy: The pursuit of wisdom and truth based on logic and opinion (translated from a Greek Dictionary)

> False. A superior philosophy is simply based on personal opinion and logic for example you may think that utilitarianism is logical while another person may think that deontological ethics are logical. My opponent states that it is the goal of the philosopher to seek the truth; this is true, however (based on the definition of philosophy provided above) they seek the truth based on their own logic and opinion that is why most philosophies contradict each other.
> Utitilitariansm is a moral philosophy that proposes a certain course of action in an ethical dilemma. In an ethical dilemma, you know the consequences of action or inaction and you must chose massed on moral philosophies or other criterions between action and inaction. While in the case of Euthanasia different circumstances have different consequences and an accurate prediction of the consequences is not usually possible. For example a person might avoid pain by being subjected to Euthanasia, but he/she can at the same lose his his/her last days that would be happy or he/she would miraculously survive and therefore death caused more pain and stopped happiness. Since the conseque
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"My opponent misses the point of my argument. Even if 100 people are saved in total in the next 5 years, it is still worth it. This is because of the huge value of human life. I use the word miracle in a metaphorical way, to explain something improbable, ‘miraculous' recoveries happen a lot more often than my opponent believes, they may be highly improbable but not extremely rare either. ‘Miracles', especially in medicine can happen to anyone, even to those without faith, therefore my opponents last point does not stand. So, we should always have faith in science and never devalue the worth of a single human life, let alone numerous."

The point is, the life of a man is his own. If he chooses to end it, if he gives up hope, that's his conscious choice, we must respect it. Even if a miracle would've happened, he has asked to be euthanized. He was aware that there could be a miracle, but he chose this. We cannot judge him for that choice. We should accommodate it.

">An oath is an oath and after you make it (either it is right or wrong to do so) morality dictates that you should follow it."
Okay, but aren't you causing more harm when you allow your patient to suffer needlessly, and against their will. And if you believe in heaven, aren't you doing them a favor, by sending them to a place in which they are so much happier than they are now. If anything, not euthanizing the patient is against the Hippocratic Oath.

"Just because they were wrong in the past doesn't mean they will always be wrong. Also, church has evolved a lot today and has gained a reputation over the past few [years] of supporting morality.
> My opponent fails to refute the point that we should not give the power over life and death should not be given to a human, especially a doctor, who can easily be influenced by third parties. Therefore extend it.
> It would be hypocritical by doctors who claim to fully support church to contradict it by applying Euthanasia. If a doctor does in fact chose to follow the church and not support Euthanasia, he would have to obey the law and go against his beliefs, which leads us to the next point that may be irrelevant from the argument of my opponent, but should be taken into consideration as an argument of its own, because as I said in Round 1, I reserve the right to make other conention. (sic)"

The church is also against homosexuality right now. Is that something you would support? Anyways, our law should be above religion. And my opponent's point that people should not be able to have power over life and death is flawed. Because if we followed that, doctors couldn't save people, nor could they deliver babies, and paramedics couldn't decide whether to save the old man or the little boy with his puppy. Basically, the world wouldn't work, men have to have some control over life and death, otherwise, we get absurdities, such as doctors who can't euthanize you, but they can't save you either. They have to just watch you die. That's the problem with this logic. And his point about doctors going against their beliefs if the euthanize, flawed. A doctor is not forced to. There are many doctors who won't perform certain procedures, but there are always doctors who will. We can always let someone who believes euthanasia is morally acceptable do the euthanizing.

"If a doctor refuses to support Euthanasia (many don't), 1. He/She would either have to go against his/her beliefs in order to keep their patients and money that they offer, this goes against liberty that my opponent claims to be supporting. 2. He/She would provide false opinions on the patient's conditioning in for them not to be subjected to Euthanasia. 3. He/She would have to give up their patient (and money from the treatment), to a doctor who supports Euthanasia just in case at some point of the treatment such an action is considered necessary, this is discrimination based on beliefs. In conclusion the affirmative would cause general problems in healthcare, this is already happening to some degree in the northern countries of Europe (strikes and objections from certain doctors), although sadly most doctors who object to Euthanasia chose to put their financial interest over their beliefs and shut their mouth in return for cash."

1. He wouldn't have to do that.
2. He wouldn't have to do that either.
3. He could do this. Doctors however already do this with many types of treatment. I would not be causing any new problems.

"Yes it is the patient's choice, but my opponent misses the point of my contention, I says that certain psychological factors (e.g. pessimism) effect the patient's choice and with his own consent may rob him of his last months of life and potential (although improbable recovery), my opponent's point is completely irrelevant and if one thing works on the negative, because he agrees that it is the patient's choice to die and we can not interfere and if his choice is wrong (due to his bad psychological condition) we still cannot prevent a wrong action because it is the patient's choice. Therefore, extend this point."

If we applied this logic to all situations, than we would not be allowed to do anything. Often my important choices are influenced by my environment, so that means that under his logic, the government would be able to take this choice away. I couldn't vote, because I might be influenced to make the wrong choice, I couldn't do anything important. That's absurd.

'> The law my opponent is proposing (consulting two doctors) is not practical. First of all it would be huge waste of man hours to have two doctors to supervise a patient that is most probably going to die anyway. This is especially true in crowded hospital, were other patients that have a better chance for their lives to be saved need care and the doctors usually aren't enough."

Consulting does not mean two doctors with constant supervision. It's simply asking another doctor to look at my charts, and tell me what they think.

"> Finally, I ask my opponent to present his proposed law so we can discuss it."

Basically, I propose that euthanasia is legal, and doctors are allowed to administer it, if patients that have been diagnosed with a terminal illness desire it. They have to get a second opinion from at least one other doctor before getting euthanized.

"> My opponent's claim of 2 doctors has already been addressed as a non-realistic solution.
>My opponent respond to this point by repeating his previous point and stating that there also solutions, that he does not present.
> I ask my opponent to present his solution(s), so it can be discussed."

Okay, first, the 2 doctors works. It won't be an issue. Second what I meant was that the two doctors thing soves the problem, bribes pressure, pessimism, all of those go away.

I don't have room to copy the last one, so I'll simply rebut it.

My opponent says that philosophy is often based on opinion. Utilitarianism is based on pure logic, so my opponent is wrong. Mill proves happiness is the only desirable end, and that since we want to achieve happiness, we should follow a moral system that does so. That's where utilitarianism comes in. It is clearly the logical philosophy. Second, my opponent claims that consequences cannot be predicted. Actually, he is wrong. While there is a small chance that he could have recovered, it is so small, it is negligent with our choice. Also, we are not robbing him of his last days because he and his family have given them up freely. He can enjoy his last days earlier, and without having to suffer his pain.

You must vote PRO.
liberty

Con

"The point is, the life of a man is his own. If he chooses to end it, if he gives up hope, that's his conscious choice, we must respect it. Even if a miracle would've happened, he has asked to be euthanized. He was aware that there could be a miracle, but he chose this. We cannot judge him for that choice. We should accommodate it."

> False, the point of my argument is the value of human life and that it would be huge gain even if just 10 lives were saved in total. The counterargument of my opponent does not address the argument that is therefore extended and since this is the final round and my opponent will not be able to counter it, it is accepted as a fact according to debating rules. This should play a role while voting

"Okay, but aren't you causing more harm when you allow your patient to suffer needlessly, and against their will. And if you believe in heaven, aren't you doing them a favor, by sending them to a place in which they are so much happier than they are now. If anything, not euthanizing the patient is against the Hippocratic Oath."

> The Hippocratic Oath clearly banns Euthanasia because killing is harming of a sort despite its intention, so my opponent's claims about Euthanasia not violating the Hippocratic Oath are false.
> Potentially, you may be robbing someone of his right to life because you are denying him a miraculous recovery.

"The church is also against homosexuality right now. Is that something you would support?"

> False the church is not against homosexuality, it is against gay marriage, witch could provide an excellent topic for another debate, because it is not definite if it is right or wrong, for this debate though it is considered neither and therefore proves nothing.

"And my opponent's point that people should not be able to have power over life and death is flawed. Because if we followed that, doctors couldn't save people, nor could they deliver babies, and paramedics couldn't decide whether to save the old man or the little boy with his puppy. Basically, the world wouldn't work, men have to have some control over life and death, otherwise, we get absurdities, such as doctors who can't euthanize you, but they can't save you either."

> The power over life and death does not include saving lives because the life already exists so we are neither taking it away nor giving it, this is also true in the case of birth since the infant is already alive before it is born. Therefore my opponent's argument does not stand.

"And his point about doctors going against their beliefs if the euthanize, flawed. A doctor is not forced to. There are many doctors who won't perform certain procedures, but there are always doctors who will. We can always let someone who believes euthanasia is morally acceptable do the euthanizing."

> This is false. If the law states that doctors have to kill their patients if they request it, they MUST do so this will cause certain doctors to a.)Go against their beliefs in order to keep patients and the money they provide b.)Lie about the patient's condition in order to not Euthanaze them c.) Be segregated based on their beliefs in handling terminally ill patients.
>So the problems I mentioned in round 2 will occur.

My opponent responds to this:

"a. He wouldn't have to do that."

Later on, he contradicts himself by not adding such a possibility in his proposed law:

"Basically, I propose that euthanasia is legal, and doctors are allowed to administer it, if patients that have been diagnosed with a terminal illness desire it. They have to get a second opinion from at least one other doctor before getting euthanized."

- So yes he would have because the law would make him do so if the patient desired it

"b. He wouldn't have to do that either."

- Yes he wouldn't HAVE to, but he would do so in order to not go against his beliefs and/or religion.

"c. He could do this. Doctors however already do this with many types of treatment. I would not be causing any new problems."

- My opponent fails to provide an example. Despite this, I disagree to this happening in the other treatments because segregation based on beliefs is wrong.

"If we applied this logic to all situations, than we would not be allowed to do anything. Often my important choices are influenced by my environment, so that means that under his logic; the government would be able to take this choice away. I couldn't vote, because I might be influenced to make the wrong choice, I couldn't do anything important. That's absurd."

> This is wrong because in the case of Euthanasia a wrong decision can cost A LIFE as compared to 1 vote out of 300,000. We should prevent people from making these choices by all means possible and we do so by not giving doctors and negatively affected (psychologically) patients the power over life and death.

"Consulting does not mean two doctors with constant supervision. It's simply asking another doctor to look at my charts, and tell me what they think."

> This is still time consuming and if this is the case, a corrupt doctor could easily assure the other doctor that the patient is dying, through charts that show that death is just a great probability. Remember, that the doctor cannot just kill any patient; he can only kill a patient whose condition is crucial, meaning that people who have a 40-60 chance of survival can be killed because a chart gives them a greater possibility of death.

"Okay, first, the 2 doctors works. It won't be an issue. Second what I meant was that the two doctors thing so[l]ves the problem, bribes pressure, pessimism, all of those go away."

> The issue has already been addressed above and my opponent's argument has been proven false.

"My opponent says that philosophy is often based on opinion. Utilitarianism is based on pure logic, so my opponent is wrong. Mill proves happiness is the only desirable end, and that since we want to achieve happiness, we should follow a moral system that does so. That's where utilitarianism comes in. It is clearly the logical philosophy. Second, my opponent claims that consequences cannot be predicted. Actually, he is wrong. While there is a small chance that he could have recovered, it is so small; it is negligent with our choice. Also, we are not robbing him of his last days because he and his family have given them up freely. He can enjoy his last days earlier, and without having to suffer his pain."

> My opponent is mistaken, by definition (the one provided in Round 2), philosophy is always based on opinion.
> Logic also tells us that killing is still considered killing despite its consequences and is therefore immoral this is explained in another ‘superior' philosophy: Deontology.
>I have already explained that the chances of survival are greater that what my opponent believes and this point was unrefuted so it is accepted. This means that the result of the action can not be predicted with 100% accuracy as is necessary in moral dilemma that my opponent's philosophy provides a proposed course of action for. Therefore moral philosophy, by definition, cannot be used to support Euthanasia because of the different circumstances in each terminally ill person's case and because the result of it cannot be predicted accurately.

In conclusion, my opponent fails to refute my argument about the value of human life and the problems that would occur in healthcare (violating beliefs and values and segregation) because he does not provide solutions to the problem in his proposed law. These should be taken into consideration as facts because my opponent does not have a second chance to refute them.

Therefore I negate,

Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
LR4N6FTW4EVAlibertyTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
LR4N6FTW4EVAlibertyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
LR4N6FTW4EVAlibertyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70