The Instigator
BA_BA_BA
Con (against)
Tied
2 Points
The Contender
beatmaster2012
Pro (for)
Tied
2 Points

euthanasia and assisted suicide

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 980 times Debate No: 22256
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

BA_BA_BA

Con

The rules to this debate are as follows.
first round you present your argument since I am con. I will post my opening arguments and rebuttals in the second
beatmaster2012

Pro

I accept and wil debate the benefits of euthanasia.

#1
Euthanasia gives people a choice to die. If they are in severe pain they should be able to have the choice of living and death, and when they have no hope left, it would be unnecessary to let them live if they don't want to. Also death is a private matter and no harm to others. If a patient is unable to choose for himself then a discussion between close friends/family and the doctors should take place to decide what's best for the patient. Also the doctors are paid to satisfy the needs of the patient and if a patient wants to die with dignity then it's a doctors duty to do so. When a pet is ill we put it to sleep as well as an act of mercy and compassion. Why not with humans?

#2
Keeping a person alive costs a lot of money and putting the patient to sleep would spare money to aid other persons. I would like to point out this should not be the primary reason for euthanasia but it is certainly a benefit.

#3
I see you're a christian so you would oppose euthanasia because god gave life to every person and life is sacred. This is debatable but not the point of this debate. Going by this logic if God wanted a person to die, the doctors should not bother trying to save him since it's His choice.

Debate Round No. 1
BA_BA_BA

Con

1. People are going to die no matter what so why not let them try and get a long full life. How do we know when there is no hope left. there was a boy in great Britain and he had a deadly strain of e. coli and the doctors said he won't live. He was five. He lived despite "kidney and liver failure and (being) blind in both eyes" He also had numerous operations. Now he is a happy kid living a full life.[1] You claim that the patient has the choice to die then contradict yourself with the statement, "If a patient is unable to choose for himself then a discussion between close friends/family and the doctors should take place to decide what's best for the patient" Well what if the person does not want to die, or the close people want the life insurance. Or the doctors want to save money on operating. We put a pet to sleep because they do not have the full mental capacity as humans do.
2. If we use euthanasia as a way to cut health care bills, we may go on the slippery slope and killing off whoever we please. There was a blue and baby deformed baby and the doctor decided to "let nature complete it's bungled job." The baby could have been saved but the doctor wanted to save money and time rather than a new life.
3. Lets keep god and religion out of this debate. However, God also allowed us to invent life support and other such life saving inventions so that we could help keep life alive. However voters, please ignore this colum unless my opponent wishes to be stubborn and not comply to my wishes. I suggest pro, that you do accept, seeing as this debate is highly religious.

source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
beatmaster2012

Pro

I see you're going on the offensive here, alright.
And you haven't posted any arguments of yourself here, just pointing that out.

#1
You're taking an example that rarely occurs here. Of course there are exceptions, but 9 out of 10 people die in those cases. And we can't make judgements based on exceptions. You know there is no hope left when the patient shows no signs of recovery and is too severely wounded for him to possibly recover. Your source clearly states he was the ONLY person in britain who had survived that case.

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm just stating a what if. And again you're taking an extreme example. Sure there is a time when there's a conspiracy between family members and doctors to make sure the patient dies to gain his fortune. But if we don't stop being scared of those extreme situations and look at the big picture (to help many suffering people), we will never achieve something.

#2
Using extreme examples again. What you say may be true, which is why the law in my country (Netherlands) says that euthanasia can only be performed on request of the patient. And that doctor was an *sshole, don't let those people cloud your judgement.

#3
God gave us free will so also the free choice of inventing abortion and euthanasia.
Debate Round No. 2
BA_BA_BA

Con

BA_BA_BA forfeited this round.
beatmaster2012

Pro

Opponent forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3
BA_BA_BA

Con

sorry, but I was out of town so I could not post my argument.
1. yes, he was the ONLY person who survived that disease, but one life is better than none. The doctors thought ha would die but he did not. He showed no signs of recovery and you would know that if you read the article. Also assisted suicide is an exception to the norm. It excepts people who have "Lived too long" and "Should die." so you should not make the argument since it too is an exception. According to your logic. Life is suffering and you cannot achieve anything without it. And a lot of people will suffer if their families send the doctor authorization to kill them. Also, A person's inability to function does not make their lives less valuable. So weather or not they can't talk, they should not die.[4]
2. I must "look at the big picture" as you said, and if one person is willing to do this, more people are. Or to put it simpler, where one goes, others follow. My judgement is on the entirety of people and I can't just except a few groups of people just because they did the thing I am arguing against. Also, there is doctor Kevorkian. He was a doctor that killed 130 patients. He was arrested for good reason. He killed his patients without even trying to help them in other ways. [1] the definition of euthanasia is "mercy killing".[2] murder is "the killing of another human" [3] so euthanasia is murder.
3. Alright, so if you go that way I can also say he allowed Hitler to masacher millions of Jews BY EUTHANASIA. However, I do not believe this and neither should you. Gods commandment said "thou shall not kill" By definition, euthanasia is killing.

Vote con
sources
1. http://articles.latimes.com...
2.http://dictionary.reference.com...
3.http://dictionary.reference.com...
4.http://www.priestsforlife.org...
beatmaster2012

Pro

#1
Since I'm not a buddhist I don't think "life is suffering". I'm also not judging whether someone should die or not. I'm just saying that if people CHOOSE to commit suicide, it is their choice and you shouldn't interfere with that. The same with euthanasia.

#2
You were partially right. The definition of murder is killing a person under conditions covered by the law. That means euthanasia is murder in America, but not in Europe. This makes it debatable whether it is really murder. Some think so, some don't. I don't since the person agreed to putting him to sleep.

Also Kevorkian carefully picked his patients and judged whether he would commit euthanasia on them, he didn't want anyone to die if he thought wasn't necessary. So I wouldn't call him a criminal, but rather some kind of savior. [1]

#3
God's commandment says "thou shall not MURDER". And I think we've just established it is questionable whether euthanasia is murder. Also the church has killed many people in the name of God, and that was okay with him. Then one ill person who sees no reasons to live should be fine too.

Closing argument
My opponent has heavily relied on exceptional examples which don't occur enough to make it a reason not to agree with euthanasia. I know this is a touchy subject so I'm asking the voters not to vote from your own opinion about euthanasia, but vote for the person with the best arguments.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by BA_BA_BA 5 years ago
BA_BA_BA
Hey, um, actually the fifth commandment is "thou shalt not kill" -Exodus
by the way, voters, do not take this into consideration
Posted by beatmaster2012 5 years ago
beatmaster2012
Sorry, I forgot the source on the last one. Here it is:
http://www.imdb.com...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 5 years ago
Multi_Pyrocytophage
BA_BA_BAbeatmaster2012Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited a round.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
BA_BA_BAbeatmaster2012Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: S