humans get depressed very fast ,from breakups to losing job humans get depressed very fast and to a great extent. however depression do fade away but in the short "depression period" someone may try to suicide but those who do not have that much guts turn to EUTHANASIA.
euthanasia is yet another form of suicide but with a touch of a doctor, this is also a case of murder
many people says that euthanasia should be conducted only after consulting many people and here is what i think about this---- young members of the family in their young twenties often wait for the family elders to die so that the property goes to them
AND here is where they advise the older and usually ill elders to turn to euthanasia.
say that euthanasia is legalised then what? that day is not far when hospitals will see is it profitable to keep the patients alive or not and soon hospitals may either use use passive or direct euthanasia to KILL the patients they think are fit to die
Since my opponent has provided arguments in R1 and has provided no debate structure I will provide arguments in this round. I will provide rebuttals in the next round in order to make it fair for my opponent and due to the character limit.
Contention 1 - Libertarian View (My view)
Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere. If they have successfully completed all the required mental health checks and they are clearly sane then they have the right to choose. If this person has decided to allow themselves to die, due to immense suffering and terminal illness then what is the argument to stop them? This is not suicide. Suicide is rarely done for medical related issues concerning themselves. The issue with preventing them from having an assisted suicide is that you are sentencing them to a life of torture and agony which nobody should deserve to live with. We sentence murderers to long term prison (in the UK) and we kill them in most parts of America. Both of these options are by far better choices than for a person to have to die slowly and painfully due to terminal illness. Essentially, you are the person indirectly sentencing an innocent person (in most cases) to a life of torture and misery. You may claim that the disease is the cause of their torture, which is true. However, you are an indirect cause and therefore you are the murderer. The torturer.
Contention 2 - The Right To Die
In...cases where there are no dependants who might exert pressure one way or the other, the right of the individual to choose should be paramount. So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions.
The Independent, March 2002
We clearly hae the right to die (as stated clearly above). Do you wish to prevent an individual from possessing their basic human rights? Many people (including me) think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so they should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing. And behind that lies the idea that human beings are independent biological entities, with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this. This is the principle that Euthanasia is based upon.
Contention 3 - Hippocratic Oath
Over time the Hippocratic Oath has been modified on a number of occasions as some of its tenets became less and less acceptable. References to women not studying medicine and doctors not breaking the skin have been deleted. The much-quoted reference to 'do no harm' is also in need of explanation. Does not doing harm mean that we should prolong a life that the patient sees as a painful burden? Surely, the 'harm' in this instance is done when we prolong the life, and 'doing no harm' means that we should help the patient die. Killing the patient--technically, yes. Is it a good thing--sometimes, yes. Is it consistent with good medical end-of-life care: absolutely yes. Whilst, some may argue that the Hippocratic Oath should not have been modified and we should be sticking to the original Hippocratic Oath, there are many problems with this argument. Hippocrates (creator of the Hippocratic Oath) lived between 460 and 370 BCE — a golden age of science and art in Ancient Greece. It may be a known fact that Hippocrates was a genius there are many new circumstances that were irrelevant or nonexistent at the time of the writing of the Hippocratic Oath.
"I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepios and Hygeia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses"
This is the opening statement of the original Hippocratic Oath. This is already unconvincing since sticking to this would require all doctors to follow the same religion and believe in the same Gods. However this is a minor issue compared to the absurdity of some of the promises that must be made. The Hippocratic Oath is sexist and here is an example of sexism within the original Oath:
- "What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men..."
The absuirtity of the original Hippocratic Oath is evident and that is why modifications were essential in order for us to exand and progress in society. The modern Hippocratic Oath implies that we have the right to euthanasia because, as I have said previously, prolonging inevitable death is causing pain. This is a clear violation of the rules within this modified document.
Contention 4 - Religious Concerns
Guided by our belief as Unitarian Universalists that human life has inherent dignity, which may be compromised when life is extended beyond the will or ability of a person to sustain that dignity; and believing that it is every person's inviolable right to determine in advance the course of action to be taken in the event that there is no reasonable expectation of recovery from extreme physical or mental disability...
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That Unitarian Universalists advocate the right to self-determination in dying, and the release from civil or criminal penalties of those who, under proper safeguards, act to honor the right of terminally ill patients to select the time of their own deaths; and...
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED: That Unitarian Universalists, acting through their congregations, memorial societies, and appropriate organizations, inform and petition legislators to support legislation that will create legal protection for the right to die with dignity, in accordance with one's own choice.Contention 5 - Living wills
Living wills can be used to refuse extraordinary, life-prolonging care and are effective in providing clear and convincing evidence that may be necessary under state statutes to refuse care after one becomes terminally ill.
A recent Pennsylvania case shows the power a living will can have. In that case, a Bucks County man was not given a feeding tube, even though his wife requested he receive one, because his living will, executed seven years prior, clearly stated that he did 'not want tube feeding or any other artificial invasive form of nutrition'...
s.vats forfeited this round.
I extend all of my previous arguments.
s.vats forfeited this round.
|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:||0||7|