The Instigator
shougunwar
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

euthinasia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,901 times Debate No: 20337
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

shougunwar

Pro

who will be my advisary
InVinoVeritas

Con

I am eager to hear my opponent's case for euthanasia.
Debate Round No. 1
shougunwar

Pro

ok and thank you for taking me on

ok while most people view euthanasia as suicide I find it to simply to be an escape from pain if you survive a crash and the doctors think they cant help or that they can but you will undergo more pain be more disfigured and there is only a slight percent chance of survival then I ask you what is the point of having you loved ones know the pain you r going through get there hopes up and then if you don't its just that much more they r hurt now the supreme court has already ruled that the right to life also means the right to death so in any state the person has the right to say they do not wish to carry on and to stop all medical treatment but this can be slow and painful as you have to wait to die even if you r survivng because of something that hurts you is incurable but takes weeks or years to kill you the person has the right to ask not to be cared for in which case they do not get food or water and have to die by that method which is also painful however in Oregon they have a law allowing for euthanasia in which case upon the patients request the doctor takes has to evaluate they r mentally sound and r not being forced by outside pressure two doctors must then talk and make sure survival is impossible or very low if both agree the patient is given one final chance to resend the wish for death if it is not then the doctor fills out a report and inject the patient with a toxin to kill them with out pain
InVinoVeritas

Con

First off, it was utterly painful to read my opponent's arguments... No periods or capitalization.. It was like reading a huge run-on sentence.

---

Now to my case:

"The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause." (Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997) [1] Supreme Court rules that physician-assisted suicide is unconstitutional.

"'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect" (Hippocratic Oath) [2] The Hippocratic Oath, the foundation of the art and science of medicine, states that physician-assisted suicide should not be practiced.

A five-year-old boy in Great Britain, after a long battle, survived deadly strain of E. coli, even though a doctor had said two years ago that he would have died over night. [3] Miracles (or, to the less religious, improbable phenomena) happen. It is not right to deny patients of a slim chance of recovery or a doctor's error. A misdiagnosis could lead to the suicide of a savable person. Also, a premature decision to commit suicide denies a patient of precious time to spend with family and friends.

---

[1] http://law2.umkc.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Debate Round No. 2
shougunwar

Pro

Firstly i would like to appoligize for my grammer. Sorry but i have always been like this. I will attempt to try to clean it up but that is all i can do. And yes i really did graduate high school my special ed qualification allowed me to get thru this and worse then this is my handwriting.

Ok it has always rejected this and it is true. But acording to Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health if i dont give you permission to help me and you do it is considerd assault [1] there for causing harm. Mean while the erson must then go without food, water, medication and other life giving items and slowly die. Also oregon remains the only state that allows assisted suicide by statute. [1]

And as for your argument of of time to peoples lack of time with family and chances of survival. This is why two physicans must agree to life being out of reach. And the order can only be given by the sick person or his family if he is unable to speak.[1] So it is that persons right to choose if they want time with there family first or not.

So in the end i ask you is it better to assault the person or let him suffer more from lack of bodily needs or to allow them to go with out any pain what so ever
InVinoVeritas

Con

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health is pretty irrelevant, since it involved a woman who was in a PSV (persistent vegetative state.) [1] "Euthanasia" is the practice of ending a life for his or her benefit (i.e., to relieve pain and suffering.) [2] She was in an unconscious state, so one really cannot determine if she was in pain or suffering. Hence, one cannot say that removing her from life support was an act of euthanasia.

And, indeed, it is true that based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, people have the right to refuse medical care. This is not assisted suicide but rather an act of self-deprivation (which, we must also remember, does not necessarily guarantee death) [3]; hence, euthanasia is a completely different matter.

Two physicians agreeing is not enough of a justification. Two physicians can look at the same flawed blood test and come up with the same conclusion... That doesn't mean that the conclusion becomes right. And let us remember the patient saying that he or she wants to die does not make the diagnosis any more true or the chances of recovery any fewer.

The aforementioned five-year-old boy who contracted a deadly strain of E. coli survived. He suffered a lot, but he lived through it, despite the doubtful views of the doctors. Although they may have had mixed feelings before, the parents, if asked now, would most certainly not wish the boy was killed during his illness. Through the painful obstacles he endured, there was a small glimmer of hope. Ultimately, he received the gift of life.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.nrlc.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by shougunwar 5 years ago
shougunwar
Thank you Wiploc

And thanks to all of you i understand yall`s voteing and so far i am actually happy with them. I wont deny that my grammer was bad cause lets be honest i would be an idiot if i did. But i love what people said. ( including those that gave me better conduct because of me doing better on gammer even if it wasnt a joke it was still funny ) I thank con for the argument even though i still have to disagree with his reasons. ( sorry they just wherent the shell shockers i was hoping to face cause debateing is fun to me the harder i have to think to prove your point wrong the more fun it is ) But in all honesty i would without a doubt trade in any wins i get on any of my debates for more debate results like this.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
I apologize for the duplicate post.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
@Hardcore.Pwnography

We're supposed to give points to the person with the most reliable sources, not the most sources.
Con's source was anti-reliable. That is, he misrepresented it. It doesn't say what he says it does.

You can still change your vote.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
First, let me congratulate Pro for improving his grammar during the debate. It really helps the reader's experience. Keep it up.

Now, as to persuasion. Pro says that sometimes people are in such painful straights that they'd be better off killing themselves. So, they should be permitted to do so.

Good argument.

Con responds that, historically, a lot of people haven't liked that. But this isn't really an argument. It's not on point.

Con's second point, about the Hippocratic oath, is fraudulent. He quotes a translation of an Ionian Greek document, and claims that modern doctors take that oath. That old version of the Hippocratic oath also forbade gallstone operations. Con had only to scroll down if he wanted to see the modern version, which does not include the language he quoted.

For this, Pro gets conduct and sources.

Con's third argument is that a sick boy got better. He probably wanted us to infer that other seemingly-hopeless cases will get better too. But he didn't articulate that for himself. He puts us to the guess. Not persuasive.

And why is it his call? What if someone is old, and doesn't want a lengthy painful fight against disease when he'll still be old and about to die afterwards? Why is Con's judgement that the possibility of life, however small, warrants any amount of suffering, however large, in every case?

We don't know. Con didn't state his own case. He just said that one kid survived a disease, and called all suicide "premature" without any consideration of circumstance.

Pro's Case is unrefuted.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
The title gave it away....
Posted by Oldfrith 5 years ago
Oldfrith
What's your side.... Acceptance... BOP....
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Wnope 5 years ago
Wnope
shougunwarInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Though I would in general agree with a state's ability to allow for assisted suicide, this debate was very one-sided and from a neutral point of view, I have to go with Con.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
shougunwarInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
shougunwarInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ...the debate kinda proves it.
Vote Placed by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 5 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
shougunwarInVinoVeritasTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct for PRO for overcoming his special-ed barrier. Great effort!
Vote Placed by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
shougunwarInVinoVeritasTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Pro debating through his disabilities
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
shougunwarInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G-Con just for the second round.... Arguments-they were equal (discounting the fact you can't read Pro's opening argument....) Sources-Con had more sources. (6 v 1)
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
shougunwarInVinoVeritasTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No caps in second round = S/G to con. Arguments on both sides I felt was underdeveloped, Pro does not rebuild his own arguments and Con merely regurgitates info from sites without providing own logic = tied. Con had sources to back up claims, Pro had none = con sources vote.