The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socratits
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives

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...
socratits
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 355 times Debate No: 55260
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives.

why euthanasia is the moral solution in this situation:
-most people's biggest fear isn't death... it's pained living. that's why the "torture" debate is so gut wrenching and passion filled.
-we understand intuitiely that we should put dog's "out of their misery", as the humane thing to do. why with people is it suddenly inhumane? there is some merit to claiming people aren't dogs and have a higher dignity... but this argument about dignity could even more easily be used the other way, it's all the more reason to be humane and "put them out of their misery", espeically when we are thinking it's about humane activity etc to begin with in the one situation.
-liberty. at best this is a tough issue. why do we let the government decide who's right in a tough issue, when the person this is affecting most could be the decider? plus if you were real about it... probably a high percentage of those who might be against euthanasia would suddenly be for it if they found themself (or possibly a loved one) in a terrible situation.

why euthanasia is the moral solution in this situation:
-most people's biggest fear isn't death... it's pained living. that's why the "torture" debate is so gut wrenching and passion filled.
-we understand intuitiely that we should put dog's "out of their misery", as the humane thing to do. why with people is it suddenly inhumane? there is some merit to claiming people aren't dogs and have a higher dignity... but this argument about dignity could even more easily be used the other way, it's all the more reason to be humane and "put them out of their misery", espeically when we are thinking it's about humane activity etc to begin with in the one situation.
-liberty. at best this is a tough issue. why do we let the government decide who's right in a tough issue, when the person this is affecting most could be the decider? plus if you were real about it... probably a high percentage of those who might be against euthanasia would suddenly be for it if they found themself (or possibly a loved one) in a terrible situation.
socratits

Con

we understand intuitiely that we should put dog's "out of their misery", as the humane thing to do. why with people is it suddenly inhumane? there is some merit to claiming people aren't dogs and have a higher dignity... but this argument about dignity could even more easily be used the other way, it's all the more reason to be humane and "put them out of their misery", espeically when we are thinking it's about humane activity etc to begin with in the one situation.

You say it's humane based on the fact that the patient himself is suffering, what about his family/friends? They might object due to religious reasons or "just cause."

You can say that its patients right to his body, but how does one make sure that the patient is really choosing death because he wants to and not because of other burdens on his life?

liberty. at best this is a tough issue. why do we let the government decide who's right in a tough issue, when the person this is affecting most could be the decider?

The government can limit one's right if an individual's actions has a potential harm to society. In this case, the distraught of family and friends. Moreover, euthanasia justifies death because it's more economically and medically efficient, aka the fear of abusing euthanizing.

plus if you were real about it... probably a high percentage of those who might be against euthanasia would suddenly be for it if they found themself (or possibly a loved one) in a terrible situation.

I dont think so, a lot of people are against it due to religious reasons.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

whatever reasons the person wants to end his life, are sufficient, as long as he is understood by professionals to be tortured, like he is in pain etc. if his ulterior motive is to get out of mowing the grass, well, i guess he got away with suicide for silly reasons. at least he was tortured for other reasons. we have to make rules that catch the far and wide majority, which euthanasia laws do just that.
you act like other people's opinions should trump or at least beconsidered. i can grant be considered, but asyou yourself ackowedge, there's a right ot the patient's body and soverignty. who are we, the government, or his friends, to tell John who is living in advanced stages of cancer and in immense pain, that he must suck it up? because johnny would be sad he died?

sometimes people might die because someone thought it more efficient that he die, and not because he wanted to. these cases are by far the exception. no rule is perfect, and again we want to ensure the rules catches the far and away majority.

you are basically just listing some negative points. nothing is perfect. the bottomline essence is that we need to allow for people's suffering and soveriengty, but it is the right thing to do. there will be problems, but that's life. at least we are by far usually doing the right thing.
socratits

Con

whatever reasons the person wants to end his life, are sufficient, as long as he is understood by professionals to be tortured, like he is in pain etc.

You're saying that suicide is moral. This is a slippery slope. At one point do we justify that euthanasia should not be permitted? If a patient is experiencing back pain and is suffering from it, do we allow him to kill himself because it's his right? You're arguing based on patient rights but the way you addres it brings up more problems than answers. If I bullied you all through highschool, would it be fair to kill me? These examples demonstrate that you need to have a clear understanding of why the patient is suffering and why he wants to be euthanaized, however, no one can justify a patient's choice but himself. It's a grey area that if not enforced properly, can lead to abuse of power.

we have to make rules that catch the far and wide majority, which euthanasia laws do just that. There are currently no laws on euthanasia and when you're trying to make laws based off of opinions, they fail. Laws are definite, opinons are infinite. They are based off of people's own perception and experiences. You cannot make a law that can draw a clear distinction between right and wrong in this situation, because people's opinions fluctuates.'

i can grant be considered, but asyou yourself ackowedge, there's a right ot the patient's body and soverignty Yes, part of the consideration is due to patient rights, however, patients rights are limited in certain circumstances for the safety of the individual or for society. If I was diagnosed with chronic depression. No matter what I tell my doctors that I want to do with my body, they will not abide to my decisions because I am considered to be in altered mental status. Again, in the case of euthanasia, the distinciton between patient rights and environmental factors becomes muddled (repeating reasons stated in R1)

you are basically just listing some negative points. nothing is perfect. the bottomline essence is that we need to allow for people's suffering and soveriengty, but it is the right thing to do

You're right. Let's just kill them off cause it's easier.



Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i do pretend to offer easy answers. but we as a soeciety, or at least professional doctors, can demarcate when someone is in 'terminal and tortured pain'. this wouldnt allow for back pain. or slight pain at terminal stage. sure there might some be gray cases, but that's just life. we want to get a rule that captures the far and away great majority. again you are just listing some negative aspects.

i dont know how you say laws are definite. some of the biggest reasons for a jury is tha tlaws are not definite. besides figuring out what happened, they determine things like whether a peson's actions were 'reasonable' or what level say of murder someone should be at. these are subjective a lot of time.

you bring up the depression point. well, perhaps you are right someone else needs to be factored in. someone needs to say this person is terminal and tortured. or at least tortured permanenly or indefinitiely. there may be errors here and there, but that's just life. we want to catch the far and away majority. granting someone soverignty is worth it

con's last statement 'lets just kill them off' i'll take as not serious. no one is saying to kill anyone off. we are letting them kill themself off...
heh. not serious but then again i kind of am. give them the power to.

in a way, it doesnt matter. it's not like a law against it is going to stop someone from killing thmself. what are you going to do, put them in prison?
socratits

Con

can demarcate when someone is in 'terminal and tortured pain'. this wouldnt allow for back pain. or slight pain at terminal stage.

The purpose that people want to end their life is due to loss of meaning. aka their lives have lost their meaning. This is why you see suicide rates high among people with depression. This is the same case as in euthanasia. It's not the physical pain that's causing them to suffer in most cases, but it's their lack of will which stems from the fact that they burden their family and friends with many different factors, none of which the patient has control over (sorry for long run-on.) To differentiate which one is actually suffering to the terminal degree of being deemed worth to be killed is controversial and is a HUGE grey area. How can one possibly determine, guy A is suffering more than guy B?

Even if pain was a major factor in euthanasia, there is no way to gage the pain. The only possiblity that I can think of is asking the patient on a scale of 1-10. If he says 1 the first time, it wouldnt seem right for the doctor to say, oh youre not suffering enough cause who is to judge who is suffering and who isnt? Moreover, even if he can say oh a pain scale of 1 is not enough to be euthanized, the patient can wait another day or two and say that his pain worsed. He can lie due to finacial burdens or other environmental burdens that was indirectly placed on him. There is no way to justify who is suffering and who is not.

You criticize me that im just listing negative points, yet you offer no credible solution to it. All you say is, "Oh we'll just make a broad law that covers every aspect." Because it's soo easy to come up with laws. Just like the Affordable Healthcare Act. We all know that it only took 30 minutes to make and we all know that it solved all our medical problems. Because, you know, it's easy making laws dealing with rights.

i dont know how you say laws are definite. some of the biggest reasons for a jury is tha tlaws are not definite. besides figuring out what happened, they determine things like whether a peson's actions were 'reasonable' or what level say of murder someone should be at. these are subjective a lot of time.

Thank you for conceding to my point. The whole fact that laws can be subjective suggests that there is no plausible way to solve all of euthanasia problems. I was stating that laws are definite in the fact that, they are absolute, to amend a law would be very hard to pass. Even if a law was amended, the time between admendments would be soo long that so many innocent lives would be lost. Of course according to you, this is fine because we justfity that all those that die were suffering, right?

in a way, it doesnt matter. it's not like a law against it is going to stop someone from killing thmself. what are you going to do, put them in prison?

Throughout this "debate" you brought no evidence or make no convincing argument to your case. This last statement not only contradicts your "law" rebuttal, but also suggests that you agree with suicide in general.

A helpful hint, if youre gonna make a debate about moral rights, maybe you should refer to some moral theories to augment your argument. You may want to check out James Rachels, Socrates, and Immanual Kant.


Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
no, but close enough.
are you really 100? if so, this debate may hit home close to you sooner than one might hope.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
Are you really 27 y/o??
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
baus
dairygirl4u2csocratitsTied
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: S&G because of lack of capitalization on Pro's part. Arguments were all rebutted by Con to Pro but Pro didn't rebut and just kept ranting.