The Instigator
XXotiKK
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DemocraticRepublic
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

euthanasia should be legal in Canada

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 541 times Debate No: 80558
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

XXotiKK

Pro

Euthanasia is one thing that we can do that will help patients. Would you rather be sick and knowing that you are fatally ill and just doing nothing but waiting until the moment you die?
DemocraticRepublic

Con

I accept this debate. I shall be discussing Euthanasia as a whole, not just specifically Canada.
I quote from your argument "Euthanasia is one thing that we can do that will help patients." This is a very vague statement. You aren't being clear enough on what patients you are discussing but I shall assume fatally ill ones. Although, the very concept of Euthanasia has one fatal flaw. Almost all nurses, doctors and physicians within Canada and elsewhere give a "Hippocratic Oath" which they pledge to stand by at all times to always (I quote from the Hippocratic Oath) "Also I will, according to my ability and judgment, prescribe a regimen for the health of the sick; but I will utterly reject harm and mischief". In order for Euthanasia to be carried out, a doctor needs to end a patients life, which is in direct violation of their oath. The doctors need to preserve their oath (hence why doctors don't administer lethal injections in USA or carry out death penalty procedures) so they can't do it. Therefore, a different officer or other type of medical staff would need to carry this out but as they are not experienced the exercise may be flawed or may be carried out wrong, which may cause even more suffering to the patients. Regardless, if the oath was abolished or removed, the doctors would be morally wrong to end a patients life, since they are there to maintain all patients lives. It could also be easily abused by lack of regulations and accidents with Euthanasia before has happened in the Netherlands and Switzerland where the exercise has gone majorly wrong resulting in even more distress to the patient.
Debate Round No. 1
XXotiKK

Pro

Since you bring up the "Hippocratic Oath" and you also said "I will utterly reject harm" wouldn't keeping a patient alive and in pain be doing harm? Euthanasia is only used if a patient is fatally ill and there is nothing that can be done to stop the pain completely. Euthanasia is also done with drugs which put the patient to sleep so they can die peacefully and painlessly which does not go against the harm part in the "Hippocratic Oath" And since you also bring up the accidents that happen then you should also know how many accidents don't happen. A family member would rather have a dad/mom/sister/brother, put out of their misery and suffering. To quote the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." Keeping a patient alive in such terrible pain would go against the charter.
DemocraticRepublic

Con

I quote from your argument "thanasia is also done with drugs which put the patient to sleep so they can die peacefully and painlessly which does not go against the harm part" This indeeds, does go against the Oath as they are harming a patient by ending its life, regardless if they died peacefully through the use of drugs or injections, the doctor/nurse still administered it so therefore they caused harm to the patient. I quote from your argument "And since you also bring up the accidents that happen then you should also know how many accidents don't happen" Regardless of how many safe procedures have been undertaken, there is still a chance and it has happened, accidents will and do happen, we can't just ignore the chances of it as you have done. I quote from your argument "To quote the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." Keeping a patient alive in such terrible pain would go against the charter." Keeping someone alive, isn't "cruel or unusual treatment" because they are keeping a patient alive, I'm afraid, people do suffer pain, but this is very wide, as patients with a number of different diseases do suffer pain but get better (in other words, not fatally ill people), that doesn't mean we need to end their suffering. So, keeping terimnally ill people alive for as long as possible, isn't "cruel", it is simply trying to extend their lives, as this is what you try to do primarily with people who have terminally ill diseases/problems.
Debate Round No. 2
XXotiKK

Pro

Extending the life of someone who is in incredible pain would be cruel. We put down dogs so that they don't have to be in pain so why not give the same consideration to humans? If we see injured animals we sometimes put them down so they don't have to be subject to the pain of life. Family members would be thinking about this like a pet owner thinks of their injured dog. Would they want the dog to live, of course they would. Would it be worth it seeing that person in pain 24-7, probably not. Another thing is the Euthanasia is the patients choice. If a doctor is against it then the doctor doesn't have to do it. There is a lengthy wait to make sure that the patient is ready in which they can decide to stay alive and in pain instead of passing on peacefully which include 2 letters, 15 days apart, talking to family about it, having a second opinion from another doctor and making sure that the person is mentally able to make such a choice. I would make a bet saying that people that are pro choice in matters of abortion would say that the patient should be able to decide.
DemocraticRepublic

Con

We shouldn't be comparing the lives of humans to animals. If it was just as simple as what you say it is, we would have already enacted it. The whole reasons some countries prohibit it is it up to abuse and can be easily abused. Another line from the Hippocratic Oath is "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect", this clearly goes against physicians, nurses and doctors oath and would prevent them from carrying out Euthanasia procedures. Euthanasia also devalues the human life and makes it seem 'okay' to end someones life, in pain or not. There is also points in when we legalise Euthanasia, people will call for more regulations for involunatary Euthanasia for much smaller or less harmful diseases and illnesses known as the "Slippery Slope". In conclusion, it shouldn't be legalised as it devalues human life, goes against God and other religions and can be used illegally and other regulations need to be enacted making things very complex and overall, a waste of money.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by M00M00 1 year ago
M00M00
I would also like to accept, but I can not either.
Posted by pilotharrison 1 year ago
pilotharrison
Would like to accept but I can't because I don't meet some of your criteria.
No votes have been placed for this debate.