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

Euthanasia should be banned.

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: 12/10/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,438 times Debate No: 66713
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I quote the Hippocratic oath (400 BC); the oath necessary for physicians and doctors to consent to to follow their profession:
""I shall give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel [...] I shall try to preserve life to the best of my ability."
Since Euthanasia is legal in some parts of the world, it massacres this oath, and the doctor-patient relationship.
I quote Canada"s Criminal code:
"241. Anyone who counsels a person [...] or aids [...] a person to commit suicide [...] is guilty of an indictable offence."

A dying patient may not be able to make a rational decision. (mental state)
(Imagine) A patient may have said they want euthanasia when they were nowhere near death; however, when faced with death they may change their mind but be incapable of telling anyone.
If there were better care for dying people, they might not demand Euthanasia.
People might be pushed into saying they wanted to be Euthanized by family that does not want to care for them.

The ending of a life is NEVER a doctor"s to take. Kill the pain. Not the patient. Murder.


Thanks for the topic, Pro.

My opponent case is easily countered by either a.) dismissing or revising the Hippocratic oath (as this sole justification seems rather arbitrary when considering the quality of life of millions) or still less controversially b.) that doctors need not administer active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia does not violated the Hippocratic oath or Canada's criminal code, so my opponent's resolution has already been adequately countered. I will still further this by suggesting the legitimate option of providing non-physicians whose sole responsibility would oversee and participate in active euthanasia. This successfully counters my opponents sole contention regarding the role of the doctor in euthanasia. I remind my opponent that no new evidence or contentions can be ethically introduced in the final round.
Debate Round No. 1


In rebuttal, Passive euthanasia: Mode of ending life in which a physician is given an option not to prescribe futile treatments for the hopelessly ill patient.
Following this, anything that a doctor does- including what he doesn't do which in this case would be not administering any active euthanasia meds, but rather being passive--- that is still breaking both the oath as they are not preserving life to the best of their ability. The Hippocratic oath is sworn in virtually all medical schools, institutions and then business.
This counters my opponents points regarding the oath and passive euthanasia.


My opponent has not adequately dismissed my contention regarding the potential to revise/dismiss the Hippocratic oath. It is not simply enough to acknowledge that the oath is commonly used. We must question whether it is ethically ideal. With the advances in medical technology today, it has become very easy to preserve life- but often in a way that is not ideal to the doctors, the families of the patients and the patients themselves. At this point, is it really necessary to preserve an oath that was created in 400 BC at the cost of mass suffering? I suggest that it is not. My opponent has offered no justification for her claims. She has merely argued that the Hippocratic oath supports not advocating euthanasia. This in no way addresses why the Hippocratic oath is ideal or ethical and so leaves my main contention completely unaddressed. It is for this reason that you must vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 6 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Pro relied heavily on the Hippocratic oath, a little too heavily which served to be what cost her the debate. When Con proposed the idea of altering the Hippocratic oath, Pro failed to rebut that. This is evident when we see Con reiterate the point he made in the first round regarding the ethical soundness of the oath in our modern times. Pro needed to overcome this or at-least provide some form of rebuttal and never did, even though the opportunity was present in the final round. Due to Pro needing to overcome the challenges presented by Con, as is required from her BOP, and failing to do so, Con rightfully wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate. I would suggest that Pro, in the future, try to attack each argument your opponent makes. When in the Pro position, you can't leave any challenges left standing.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.