Debate Rounds (3)
Who should flip the switch? is it the choice of the man to be mercy-killed? is it the choice of his friends and family?
Euthanasia isn't just a mixed bag of uncertainties in its execution but the level of trust in the act.
We already have troubles trusting our doctors in many cases and charges of malpractice flying everywhere. can any man say it was a mercy-kill?
can we trust the doctor? A doctor should always be a man without bias and should never kill a man out of spite. This may be the ideal but in reality a doctor will always hold some level of bias for or against his patients. any disposition towards a patient could lead to a "mercy-kill."
we can not regulate the conditions behind euthanasia and it is for this reason you cannot support it
Euthanasia is indeed a very complicated process, and questions on the basis of our own mortality will always be extremely difficult morally and spiritually. There are many questions, as my opponent has shown, that can prove to be difficult in answering whether or not euthanasia should be a legal practice. I will attempt to answer these questions now, providing a suitable basis for moral and ethical euthanasia.
>Is it an option when a man is suicidal?
You may think that people who want euthanasia are suicidal because they want to die, or you may not think that. If it is indeed suicide, it would depend on the circumstances.
>Is it the choice of the man to be mercy-killed?
Euthanasia is a very complex choice for those who wish to do it. If somebody is suffering and will not survive their illness, then it is justified for the person to terminate their own life to avoid the prolonging of their own suffering and the suffering of others.
>Is it the choice of his friends and family?
No. If a terminally ill person wants to live on, that is their decision.
>Can any man say it was a mercy-kill?
This depends on what you mean, again. Since it is up to the patient, the death is caused by a terminal sickness but suffering is reduced by the patient's own actions.
>Can we trust the doctor?
Doctors are generally trustful, but I understand your scepticism when it comes to deciding death. I would make necessary for euthanasia to have consultations with TWO SEPARATE physicians to determine whether an illness is terminal and if euthanasia could be justified from the suffering, and a psychiatrist to determine if the patient has a sound mind to decide their own death.
You suggest that euthanasia cannot be regulated, but this is what supporters of euthanasia are trying to do. Currently it is not illegal for a terminally ill person to kill themselves, it is only illegal for those to assist him. Making euthanasia LEGAL AND REGULATED would place necessary barriers to make euthanasia open and safer for those who are terminally ill and suffering.
the question is another slant against the man who administers it. more based on the level of trust you have with the doctor. Can any doctor in any normal situation use euthanasia as a "cover-up?" can we check to make sure it wasn't a cover up? Can any doctor go up to a patient, intentionally kill him, and write it off as euthanasia? It is a looming and grim phantom hanging over the issue which in most cases goes on to harm the credibility of the issue. Would the idea of euthanasia as an option discredit doctors by being an option itself?
>The other issue which stands from "can we trust the doctor" is less if he really did it to "what the people would think?"
euthanasia again could become a nightmare legally. Numerous cases of malpractice charges could swamp any number of legal courts. Whether or not the charges are based in reality is not the issue
>Can euthanasia be an out for actual malpractice charges?
Can any doctor who with the right intentions ups a patients intake of morphine to a dangerous level simply says it was euthanasia? The idea of euthanasia in courts from legalizing it could become an issue. can we allow such malpractice to be passed off or in some cases limited in punishment because it was apparently "euthanasia." any good and deceitful lawyer could lessen the charges by twisting the facts
>Can any doctor in any normal situation use euthanasia as a "cover-up?"
No, because euthanasia must be agreed to by the patient. There must be numerous records for the patient to affirm that they wish to go through euthanasia, and separate doctors must address the patient individually and come to independent conclusions that euthanasia is an appropriate option for a terminally ill patient.
>"Can we trust the doctor".
It doesn't matter whether you or I trust the doctors, it is up to the terminally ill patient to decide whether they trust the doctors. In many cases, the actual euthanasia is carried out by the patients themselves with assistance from a medical doctor. If the patient does not want to undergo euthanasia or changes their mind at any stage, they may do so.
>Can any doctor who with the right intentions ups a patients [sic] intake of morphine to a dangerous level simply says it was euthanasia?
No, euthanasia must be agreed to beforehand by the patient, and their affirmation must be clear and consulted with numerous doctors to determine if the patient is mentally sound to make the decision and if their terminal illness causes immense suffering and is indeed incurable.
Euthanasia empowers the patient to decide, with the approval of the necessary health professionals, to decide to end their suffering from a terminal illness. It does not empower any doctors or family members to make that decision, euthanasia is simply the decision of the patient, with regulation, to determine their suffering has gone on long enough with no end in sight.
While the issue of euthanasia is a moral ambiguity at best and a legal nightmare at worst. this debate is not about the moral aspect of the issue. This debate is about whether euthanasia can be accepted from a legal stand-point. I, as con, am against the idea of euthanasia as it brings too many questions. these questions vary from its legal application to its psychological effects on all( patients, doctors, and the media. It is a dangerous grey-area and without fully being checked-out to avoid all negative ramifications which could arise, it should not be implemented.
I have answered all the questions my opponent has claimed to be too dangerous to be implemented. Belgium, the Netherlands and other countries allow for assisted suicide or euthanasia under certain conditions, mostly;
- An incurable and terminal illness, with untreatable suffering,
- Approval from a regulatory commission and/or numerous doctors, and
- A healthy mind to decide on euthanasia as approved by a mental professional.
At all times, the patient can reverse the decision to terminate their life, even up to the euthanasia being administered. Devices such as a euthanasia deliverance machine can be used so that the patient can initiate their own death once it is set up and supervised by a physician.
Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Estonia, Albania, and the US states of Washington, Oregon and Montana where it has worked for years and is approved by the populace, recognised to be a safe and accountable way for terminally ill patients who are suffering pain from an incurable disease can die with dignity by their own conscience.
 (extra video)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by black_squirrel 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||5|
Reasons for voting decision: A potential problem with euthanasia is clinically depressed people, because they may commit suicide because of their temporary mood disorder, not because of a well-reasoned deliberation. This was not discussed in too much detail here. The best argument was given by PRO: In the Netherlands and Belgium euthanasia is regulated and does not cause any legal nightmare as CON predicted. So arguments go to PRO. However, I find it a little unfair that PRO leaves his best argument for the final round, so I gave CONduct to CON (and PROduct to PRO but there is no such category - sorry that was a bad joke). I did not notice any severe S&G violations. Sources also to PRO, because CON did not give any.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.