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

Voluntary Euthanasia should be banned. Argue.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,707 times Debate No: 38970
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




What is euthanasia:

Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.

Voluntary Euthanasia: refers to the practice of ending one's own life in a painless manner. Voluntary euthanasia (VE) and physician assisted suicide (PAS) have been the focus of great controversy in recent years. Legal procedures have to be undergone in such cases, and these are only allowed in some 5 or 6 countries only.
  • Round 1: Agreement to rules only
  • Round 2: Debate (max of 1500 words)
  • Round 3: Rebuttle
  • Round 4: Answer to rebuttle(in 1000 words max)



Hello! I am glad to be debating with you on this very controversial issue.

I just want to clarify - are you against the banning of voluntary euthanasia? Just making sure; I'm against it, and I want my argument to reflect that.

I accept your rules, although a large character count would delight me much more.

Good luck. May the voters decide who ultimately wins.

Debate Round No. 1


Hello Jvava,

I stand against the motion before us.

A person may be is terminally ill, doctors say that there is no hope for him the patient wishes for death, would you still lock him up behind bars and chains of mortality ; denying him the peace and happiness. Would you rather see a person suffer as per as your jealous wishes than do what he desires to and give him eternal happiness?

Euthanasia is carried out with complete consent from the patient. If one is sick, one can be attacked severely by more physical and emotional pain. One may think "No one can take a life, not even the state"; a very strong point indeed. No, but a person indeed has all rights over his own life; and an euthanasia is always certified by doctors. We can say that euthanasia is ending a painful life in a painless way.

Euthanasia should not be banned, banning euthanasia suggests that the right to life is being taken away from a citizen.
It is unfair and immoral.

Thank you.

I request my contender to continue
Best of luck.



Doctors argue quite differently. They say that is nearly impossible to predict the life expectancy of any patient. It may seem like they'll never recover; however, many doctors argue that some patients can live for years and can recover from terminal illness. Remember, terminal means that it seems as though a person will die. It isn't 100%.

Killing yourself before the chance at recovery would be called suicide.

"An article in the journal, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, described assisted suicide guidelines for those with a hopeless condition. "Hopeless condition" was defined to include terminal illness, severe physical or psychological pain, physical or mental debilitation or deterioration, or a quality of life that is no longer acceptable to the individual. That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse."

This is pulled off an anti-euthanasia website:

This website outlines my argument perfectly.
Debate Round No. 2


Time for the questions in rebuttal, 1500 characters: (Answers in next round)

"Remember, terminal means that it seems as though a person will die. It isn't 100%." Well if it was 100% then there was no need of voluntary euthanasia.

Don't compare suicide to euthanasia. Suicide committed when the person is in healthy condition, euthanasia, when the person cannot stand the pain he is undergoing, may be for years. Such a decision is taken for releasing the strain on financial conditions and releasing the excruciating emotional and physical pain of the patient. It is rare and not executed in every alternate case. In most cases it leaves the patient and the family content, for ultimately the patient experiences no pain.

Suppose you are the patient, say suffering from entire mind and body paralysis, would rather live inert or choose to die?

Thank you.
Post your question in this round and answer my question in the next round.


Please read this definition of suicide provided by Merriam-Webster:

1. the act of killing yourself because you do not want to continue living

This sounds similar to the definition of euthanasia.

You may not be killing yourself, but you are giving consent to be killed. This is the same thing in my mind. Also, the pain might be unbearable - but you don't want to continue living because of the pain. According to Merriam-Webster, this is considered suicide because you don't desire to keep living.

Also, those that commit suicide are under some sort of pain they don't want to experience - whether it be physical, mental, finical, spiritual, etc.

Basically, suicide is committed by those who don't want to live anymore because of some sort of pain. How is this different from an elderly person who doesn't want to undergo pain and participates in euthanasia? It is not.

Should we give a 20-year old widow the option of euthanasia because she is going through a pain that it seems she'll never recover?

Debate Round No. 3


Euthanasia may be similar to suicide, BUT NOT THE SAME.

Well we talk of euthanasia and not suicide. As far as your question goes, you talk of suicide, while the motion is euthanasia. Euthanasia is executed, when patients are in the last stage of their life, as I said, cannot walk, talk, take for example in coma, we often pray that may the patient pass away, so that he is relieved of his pains, in this the question of euthanasia comes up; except for being in a coma, the patient's agreement is required.

Well, that you talk of a 20 year old widow:
1. She's no patient.
2. Her husband was not her whole world or happiness.
3. She is in mental pain and not physical. This pain will gradually decrease with the passage of time.
4. She is not in a condition where her death can come in any moment
5. No legal body will grant her the permission for euthanasia.

Well if she wants to die, she has to commit suicide, which is according to me a very immoral way of ending one's life, and that too painfully.



1. the act of killing yourself because you do not want to continue living

Euthanasia is the act of consenting to be killed because one does not want to continue living due to some sort of physical pain. This certainly sounds the same to me; it is the decision of the voters, however.

As far as your question goes, paralysis cannot be used to justify euthanasia. Why? Because, first, an individual who suffers both physical and mental paralysis is not equipped with the proper thinking skills to make the decision for himself. Someone who is handicapped both on the body and inside the brain should not have to make such a decision for himself. And neither should the family, since it is not their life they are taking.

Also, paralysis is the loss of muscle function, which can result in complete loss of feeling. If euthanasia is used to prevent pain, paralysis is not an example because it is not physically painful.

Euthanasia is inhumane. The voters can now decide on who is correct.

Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 2 years ago
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a better case. Euthanasia is not the same as suicide and is an example of a persons right to their own life. jvava attempts to correlate suicide and euthanasia but they are not the same.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: The whole debate was derailed by the discussion of whether voluntary euthanasia is suicide. It is, the assistance of a physician or other is only required because the patient is incapable of performing the suicide himself. The reason for the suicide is pain or torment, but it's still suicide. With the 1500 words devoted to pointless semantics, the issues of whether euthanasia could be protected against abuse by heirs pressuring old people or use to save medical costs were not discussed. Neither side had sources for their points, like how often a person pronounced terminal might live. A weak debate, tied.