The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

should euthanasia be legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 862 times Debate No: 38779
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




A doctor"s function has changed over time. In the past, the doctor was a person who besides being your friend treated the diseases. Now a doctor is a stranger who combats diseases, but he/she is not always your friend. What will never change is their constant struggle against death. However, their job is not only to prevent death but also to improve their patient"s quality of life. Many times there is nothing a doctor can do to prevent a patient from dying if the patient has a terminal disease; all he/she can do is wait for death to arrive. This waiting time can be very painful for both the patients and the people who surround them. Not practicing euthanasia at the request of the dying person is violating a person"s rights, creating an economic burden, interfering with a doctor"s job, and increasing suffering have never been in a situation where I have to decide whether euthanasia should be applied to someone or not. But I tell you something: if I ever see myself in that kind of situation, I would have no doubt of agreeing with it. If it is the desire of the person to die, I will support him. I think that choosing how we want to die is not an option that we all get. So be sure I'll help someone on choosing when and how he wants to die. Just imagine yourself in a similar situation. Would you like to be helped by doctors and your friends to die the way you want it or be kept in a room where you can hardly move with machines keeping you alive? Why not end this suffering if we have the power? There is no point of waiting for the person to die if there is nothing the doctors can do about it. If the person wishes to die, we should please him with their last wish. This is why euthanasia should be legal for anyone who desires it.



Your argument is very weak. You said, “Not practicing euthanasia at the request of the dying person is violating a person’s rights, creating an economic burden, interfering with a doctor"s job…” This is a form of a fallacy that begs the question. No evidence is offered to support your claim. You failed to explain how not practicing euthanasia violates an individual right, creates economic burden, and interferes with doctor’s job. All you did was to make evidence your own claim, but in reality no evidence was given or any explanation for those claims.


It devalues human life. This is one reason why euthanasia is not acceptable. Proponents of euthanasia, however, do not believe it degrades life and for them patients who suffer from incurable disease should be afforded with a choice whether or not to end their sufferings. But the problem with that, it is not always the case, not all reasons for accepting euthanasia center on the suffering of a patient, other reasons are decreasing medical costs and other monetary reasons. For example, a report issued by EPAC, the Economic Planning and Advisory Council, a government think-tank. The report discussed the rising costs of medical care for the elderly, and rising hospital costs in general, and actually suggested that euthanasia might be an option in dealing with this crisis. There was no mention of suffering or the humane treatment of dying human beings. Instead, cold utilitarian considerations of cost-cutting were given as the reason to consider euthanasia.1

That becomes problem when reasons, other than the suffering of the patient, are given in support with euthanasia. It degrades the life of person by saying that his life is less important than the money that might be saved if euthanasia is accepted.

Life is very sacred, accepting euthanasia destroys that sanctity. It may be your life but according to God, you don’t have the right to take it.

Another reason against euthanasia, It neither preserve human life nor protect the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion

In Washington v. Glucksberg ,the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that a right to assistance in committing suicide was not protected by the Due Process Clause.2

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion for the court. His decision reversed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a ban on physician assisted suicide embodied in Washington's Natural Death Act of 1979 was a violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court held that because assisted-suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest, it was not protected under the 14th Amendment. As previously decided in Moore v. East Cleveland, liberty interests not "deeply rooted in the nation's history" do not qualify as being a protected liberty interest. Assisted-suicide, the court found, had been frowned upon for centuries and a majority of the States had similar bans on assisted suicide. Rehnquist found the English common-law penalties associated with assisted suicide particularly significant. For example, at early common law, the state confiscated the property of a person who committed suicide. Like Blackmun in Roe v. Wade, Rehnquist used English common law to establish American tradition as a yardstick for determining what rights were "deeply rooted in the nation's history." Rehnquist cited Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the opinion.3

The Court felt that the ban was rational in that it furthered such compelling state interests as the preservation of human life and the protection of the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. It also prevented those moved to end their lives because of financial or psychological complications. The Court also felt that if the Court declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutionally protected right, they would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary euthanasia.4

Similarly, in Vacco v. Quill, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great pain, was a legitimate state interest that was well within the authority of the state to regulate. In brief, this decision established that, as a matter of law, there was no constitutional guarantee of a "right to die."5



[2] [3] [4]


Debate Round No. 1


karina_kimep forfeited this round.


Have you committed suicide already assisted by a doctor?:D
Debate Round No. 2


karina_kimep forfeited this round.


the administrator of this site must do something about users who forfeit debate matches... tsk
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Weiler 3 years ago
What is all the fuss about euthanasia? What did those little Chinese kids ever do to you?
Posted by unfortunate 3 years ago
I agree with magi, would debate if you were against.
Posted by magi800 3 years ago
I would join the debate if you were against euthanasia so...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
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 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: FF