The Instigator
rangersfootballclub
Pro (for)
Losing
39 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Con (against)
Winning
101 Points

voulentary euthanisa should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,506 times Debate No: 7002
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (47)
Votes (24)

 

rangersfootballclub

Pro

My point is simple and i will get straight to the point

If i person wants to die and has a terminal illness and they have made this decsion then let them give them time to wait and decided but if they are certain they want this let them its that simple.
how would you like it if you live in extreme mental and physical health and want to die but some judge who doesnt give a s**t about you says no you cant jsut because he feels like it? i leave you with one message pretty straightforward and apbrupt

THERE LIFE LET THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT, THEY HAVE TO LIFE THEIR LIFE NOT YOU THEY DO .
KRFournier

Con

I extend warm thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. I stand in negation to the resolution that euthanasia should be legal.

1. The ambiguity of terminal illness is a reasonably insufficient reason to terminate life.

Wikipedia states, "Often, a patient is considered to be terminally ill when the life expectancy is estimated to be six months or less, under the assumption that the disease will run its normal course." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The key factors in diagnosing a patient as terminal is time and reasonable assumption. Therefore, it is fair to say that the terminally ill will probably die if the disease runs it's course, but it is not logical or rational to say that the patient will absolutely die. It is important to note that "the six-month standard is arbitrary," underscoring the impossibility of predicting the patient's fate. It is also important to point out that a patient with a deadly disease expected to live for many years is NOT terminal. For example, "a patient with a slowly progressing disease, such as AIDS, may not be considered terminally ill because the best estimates of longevity were greater than six months."

So the question becomes, which factor justifies assisted suicide? The fact that the patient is doomed to die or that he/she is doomed to die soon? Presumably, my opponent appeals to the latter, which will beg the question, how soon is too soon? Is one year soon enough to request death or too long? Six months and one day or five months and 29 days? Any appeal to imminent death is logically arbitrary and should be seen as insufficient in excusing euthanasia, given the burden killing a someone brings upon both the requester and the executioner.

---------------

2. It is unacceptable to request someone else to kill you.

Consider for a moment Sue Rodriguez, who was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 1991 and was killed via assisted suicide in 1994. (http://www.cbc.ca...). While her plea for the legalization of assisted suicide in Canada was debated in the courts, no one considered how completely irresponsible her request truly was. After the court ruled against her she said, "If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?" She insists that she owns her life but refuses to own her death. If human life has value and belongs to the individual and not to others--as this society overwhelmingly maintains--then by logical extension we own our own deaths. But to place the burden of killing another human on someone else to meet your own needs is the height of hypocrisy. If Sue Rodriguez wanted to die, then she should have accepted the burden herself instead of insisting society's responsibility to do it for her.

---------------

3. Legal euthanasia gives transfers rights from the responsible to the irresponsible.

Once euthanasia is made legal, irresponsible people (those unwilling to kill themselves without assistance) can request responsible people (doctors sworn by professional or religious oath never to kill people if it can be helped) to carry out their execution. The ramifications are dangerous. It is not at all far fetched to imagine a situation in which a terminally ill patient is unable to find a local doctor to kill them and also unable to travel the distance to one who will. It is inevitable that the courts will be faced with the decision to make euthanasia a compulsory offering. Doctors unwilling to kill another human ought to never face a lawsuit or loss of career due to an otherwise virtuous conviction--especially since a terminally ill patient already has the right to kill themselves.

---------------

We cannot begin to imagine the pain and suffering faced by those deemed terminally ill, but an appeal to emotion cannot save the day. Killing another human being for any reason carries weight, both legally, psychologically, and--for many--spiritually. The request is not to be taken lightly, and simply using an arbitrary guess as to one's fate is not enough to assist in their death. If one want's to take their own life, then they should take responsibility for that which they claim is their right, and dispatch themselves without assistance. Forcing their desires on others is hypocritical, immoral, open to discriminatory action, and ought not to be legalized.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
rangersfootballclub

Pro

i would like to thank my opponent for taking up this debate and posting a very long reposnse which was a good arguemnt in his case.

heres what i think however

my proposal is simple , i had this idea suicide machines if you like , were the person requests help to die becaus he or she is just not capable of doing this himself for medical reasons. the " suicide machine " is prepared and all the patient might even need to do is blow into a straw or something that they can do to activate this machine ,however if there is any hesisation a all the procedure is stopped.

this is roughly what happens in the netherlands the now were assiated suicide is legal and if a patenitent reuquests this , two docotes will look at the case and come to an agreement. the pateninet has to wait a perooid of time so he or she can chnage their mind , if they dont then everything goes ahead .

i would also like to point out to my opponent once you are diagnoised with a terminal disease , you are guaranted to die , there may have been sevral cases were they havent died but i have yet to see about them.

my belife is something called being human being kind. Ask anybody with a terminal disease they will tell you the pain and suffering , i watched realtives go through terminal diseaes and let me tell you that was the only time i wished death upon a loved one , for only one reason i couldnt bare to watch them die in constant pain over sometimes months.

you have to remember one thing about my idea of this system i want in place , it has to be full proof nothing stupid like docters running around killing patentins infact the docter doesnt have to even take part in the procedure.

i just think its inhumane how a court can decide to tell people that they cant be put put out of their pain in a humane way , which may lead to people commiting sucide by themselves before they are unabe to.

we all have to remember one thing , we all have our own lifes and may choose to lie these lifes as we please as long as we do not affect others , we all have he right to die when we please , this may sound stupid but i think each person should be in control of their own life.

i would like to apologise for my poor spellign and lack of a great arguement i am not feeling well and just wish to post it quickly but try be as convincing as possible.
KRFournier

Con

My sympathies to my opponent for feeling under the weather. I hope he gets well soon.

On the surface, my opponent would like you to believe that his request is simple: to give suffering people a means by which they can escape their suffering. My goal, as the contender in this debate, is to show how my opponent's position fails in it's over simplification and reasoning.

My opponent says quite plainly that he believes assisted suicide to be a right. In the same way that energy is never created or destroyed but always transferred or converted, entitlement rights carry with them the effect of suppressing rights of others. By nature, any right granted to an individual necessarily places a moral duty on others. The right to freedom of speech, for example, places a moral duty on others not to inhibit that freedom. The right to non-discrimination places a moral duty on employers to hire according to skill and ability alone. Moral duties, by their very nature, restrict one's freedom. Ergo, protecting the rights of some implies suppressing the freedom of others.

Protecting rights is good, but we must not get carried away granting rights to everyone without consideration for the suppression of freedoms that accompany them. Therefore, in the case of euthanasia, we must consider the freedoms suppressed by its legalization. To do this, let us analyze two scenarios. In the first, euthanasia is not a right, not guaranteed by the state, and is in fact illegal--that no institution or individual succumb to abuses. In the second, euthanasia is legal and guaranteed by the state, forcing at least some institutions or individuals to comply so that the right to mercy killing is not denied or inhibited. In both scenarios we will consider two people groups: Patients seeking assisted suicide and doctors holding to the Hippocratic Oath so dearly as to be unwilling to ever perform such procedures.

Case 1: Euthanasia Rights Denied
- Patients Seeking Assisted Suicide: Freedoms inhibited. The only way out for these patients without placing others in legal jeopardy is to dispatch themselves.
- Hippocratic Doctors: Total Freedom. These doctors can work and live wherever they choose without fear of compromise.

Case 2: Euthanasia Rights Protected
- Patients Seeking Assisted Suicide: Total Freedom. These patients can choose to die at the hands of a hospital or institution guaranteed to be within reasonable distance and affordability.
- Hippocratic Doctors: Freedoms inhibited. These doctors my still be able to practice without compromising their convictions, but they will be limited where they can work and live and are not immune to litigation.

Given this analysis, my opponent is mistaken in supposing that the legalization of euthanasia has only benefits and no consequences. In order to justify making euthanasia legal, he must show that it is indeed a fundamental right. The only justification he has so far offered is an appeal to emotion. He speaks of unbearable emotional trauma when watching a loved one suffering. He appeals to the personal experiences of those with terminal illness. This seems to be less an argument for the right to die as it is a right to not have to feel bad. Does my opponent truly suggest that doctors sworn to the Hippocratic oath ought to be in the awkward position of sacrificing their convictions in order to make others feel less sad? The fact that people hurt is not a sufficient reason to call euthanasia a legal right.

Until my opponent can show that euthanasia is an inalienable right, his argument amounts to wishful thinking and emotional appeal. In my view, this is a terrible reason to infringe upon the Hippocratic Oath that so many doctors take to heart. This is made especially worse given that terminally ill patients are not currently prohibited from choosing their time of death. They are only limited as to HOW that death is carried out.

To summarize, I argued in my first round that terminal illness is an arbitrary definition that has more to do with emotion than medical criteria. I further argued that claiming a ownership of life while deferring ownership of death is hypocritical and that the possible legal ramifications are too risky. In this round, I showed how my opponent fails to recognize that granting rights to one individual ultimately suppresses the freedoms of others and that, in this case, such action cannot be justified by a simple appeal to emotion. Euthanasia is not a right and should not be legal.
Debate Round No. 2
rangersfootballclub

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent again , for posting a rather challenging response and interesting read.

my opponent claims that , doctors are bound by oath and are forbidden to kill. However I remember watching a video on doctors in Holland who do euthanizes patients. The doctor said , " If I treat a patient with a broken arm , I will give him something to ease the pain first. Then I will give him a cast to help it heal the arm ". This doctor is implying that , this is not just killing , it is an act of mercy . People are born with the right to be protected from suffering and pain , terminal diseases cause suffering and pain. Therefore if a person is suffering and in pain that person has the right to stop this suffering and pain. The mental impact is nothing , my opponent claims what about the thought off having to end someone's life is to much mental trauma , however the system I want in place requires nobody to kill the patient , a suicide machine , If you want to commit suicide you must travel to Switzerland or elsewhere and must drink and toxic cocktail and lift it by yourself in order for this to be a legal suicide. We must not allow "pen pushers " and judges to decide how the last moments off the terminally ill are carried out.
KRFournier

Con

I'm glad to see my opponent feeling better. I'm afraid, however, his quick turn around may prove inadequate in defending his position.

----> "my opponent claims that , doctors are bound by oath and are forbidden to kill."

Actually, I cited a group of doctors that do not wish to kill under any circumstances for purposes of example. These kinds of doctors would lose freedoms should euthanasia become a protected right.

----> "However I remember watching a video on doctors in Holland who do euthanizes patients. The doctor said , " If I treat a patient with a broken arm , I will give him something to ease the pain first. Then I will give him a cast to help it heal the arm ". This doctor is implying that , this is not just killing , it is an act of mercy ."

I am well aware that some doctors do wish to kill in mercy. This, however, does not refute my contention that doctors who refuse to kill--either by religious or personal convictions--would be losing freedoms in order that terminally ill patients can require someone else to kill them.

----> "People are born with the right to be protected from suffering and pain , terminal diseases cause suffering and pain. Therefore if a person is suffering and in pain that person has the right to stop this suffering and pain."

Indeed, and without legalizing euthanasia, that right still exists. Legalizing euthanasia only legalizes HOW one may stop pain and suffering.

----> "The mental impact is nothing , my opponent claims what about the thought off having to end someone's life is to much mental trauma"

I have little concern for the trauma of the person administering the suicide. My point was that an appeal to emotion cannot adequately defend the legalization of euthanasia. I was speaking to the emotional trauma faced by loved ones, to which my opponent was appealing his case. In essence, my opponent is in favor of legalizing euthanasia so that patients can escape physical pain and people like my opponent can escape emotional pain.

----> "however the system I want in place requires nobody to kill the patient , a suicide machine , If you want to commit suicide you must travel to Switzerland or elsewhere and must drink and toxic cocktail and lift it by yourself in order for this to be a legal suicide."

This idea places my opponent into a logical contradiction. If the thought of physically suffering patients is so sad as to render it a fundamental right, then the thought of emotionally suffering parents that just lost their depressed teenage daughter to a suicide machine ought to render it illegal. My opponent cannot have it both ways.

----> "We must not allow "pen pushers " and judges to decide how the last moments off the terminally ill are carried out."

And we must certainly not allow emotional appeals to grant entitlement rights to a group of people that already have a reasonable alternative. Terminally ill patients are well within their rights to kill themselves without transferring this burden to others.

----------

I would pat my opponent's back for his compassion towards people doomed to suffer from a terminal illness if it weren't for his blatant disregard for those that would be emotionally burdened to kill the people they swore to heal. My opponent has not thought through his position, and he certainly has done very little to refute my contentions. My following contentions throughout this debate remain unanswered:

1. Terminal illness is ambiguous, so choosing who can be killed and who can't is arbitrary. Note that my opponent never offered more concrete criteria.

2. Asking someone else to kill you is immoral. My opponent never addressed the fact that claiming ownership of life while denying ownership of death is hypocrisy of the highest degree.

3. Legalizing euthanasia unnecessarily transfers rights. Why should the state protect a right that already exists in a more limited form? Should hospitals be forced to offer suicide doctors--or worse--machines? Should insurance companies be obligated to pay for such procedures? My opponent has not offered any evidence beyond opinion that assisted suicide is a right.

Given that my opponent has not responded to my contentions and his contentions have been met with vigorous response, I respectfully ask the readers to vote in negation of the resolution. Voluntary euthanasia should not be legal.
Debate Round No. 3
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
ok I hope your family remember that if you ever get something like cancer , as harsh as that sounds ( not that i wish for you to get cancer of course etc ! ) your family will say when you are begging to have an end put to it as the pain is unbeartable and you have a month or two maybe more to go , thou shall not kill eh ?....
Posted by ConservativesRule 8 years ago
ConservativesRule
I only have one thing to say and it is a simple command:
"Thou shalt not kill." I wish people would remember this...
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Yes, evaluating ethics in a debate does not need sources. As your argument comprised solely on that, I'm not surprised nor demanding any sources. But using facts, statistics, and basically what they call 'hard evidence' never hurts (and mostly helps).
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
i dont care for votes , its jsut what people think about a debate , i rarley refer to sources in arguments like this which dont need them , as they are moral debates and opions .
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
That being said, my points go to KRFournier:

Conduct (TIE) - Both sides were courteous.

S&G (TIE) - Though I'd prefer correct capitalization for PRO, the spelling and grammar was acceptable.

Arguments (CON) - Despite using the outdated Hippocratic Oath, nonetheless CON had several key arguments that weren't refuted, or barely refuted, by PRO.

Reliable Sources (CON) - He supplied the only sources in this debate.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Even if everything was arbitrary, the patient should be allowed to kill themselves. They can be fine, healthy, and young for all I care.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
I wouldn't doubt that there are sympathy votes mixed in there. Now that the site is better equipped to deal with vote bombers, let's hope we don't have future situations. That being said, if you really feel there is an injustice here, you can ask people to review this debate in the forums. I'm happy to lose fair and honest votes.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
aww you i could be winning sicne im sure people voted in your favour when they saw the debates , i mean its unfair i didnt even know what vote bombing is now apprantley i have benfiied and now im the vicitim of it ?
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
See this: http://www.debate.org.... You were the beneficiary of vote bombing, now you are the victim of its reversal.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
what the hell ? how can i be winning by 100 votes now and not even have 50 votes ?? something is seriously wrong.
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Alchemistress 6 years ago
Alchemistress
rangersfootballclubKRFournierTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by yayawhatever 7 years ago
yayawhatever
rangersfootballclubKRFournierTied
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 
Vote Placed by Demetra 7 years ago
Demetra
rangersfootballclubKRFournierTied
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 
Vote Placed by stina2bina 7 years ago
stina2bina
rangersfootballclubKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by ricky78 7 years ago
ricky78
rangersfootballclubKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by The_Booner 8 years ago
The_Booner
rangersfootballclubKRFournierTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by ConservativesRule 8 years ago
ConservativesRule
rangersfootballclubKRFournierTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 8 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
rangersfootballclubKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
rangersfootballclubKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by pgoulaimpact 8 years ago
pgoulaimpact
rangersfootballclubKRFournierTied
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:70