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

Euthanasia should be legal

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: 12/12/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 670 times Debate No: 97960
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Question: What if you are suffering the worst illness, with no cure. Would you want the choice to die? You don't have to die, say, if you believe in preserving life, but don't you want the option? Do you think it's fair to those who don't believe in preserving life to be forced to live? Why do you, a citizen of a country in which freedom is greatly valued, want to be restricted to only one option? Answer these questions with a convincing answer other than, "God chooses when we die" and I will be thoroughly impressed.


I accept this debate. I will be arguing against the legalisation of euthanasia and why it's a logically unreasonable position.

Second round - arguments

Third round - rebuttals and conclusion

Good Luck

Debate Round No. 1


Just please answer the questions posted in my original argument, and if you do, I will be impressed.


First I will make my argument against euthanasia and secondly I will respond to your original questions.

My argument will be based on 3 points:

Mixed Messages

Further Implications

Alternative Options


Mixed Messages

The first point to my argument is that euthanasia sends mixed messages to society about the value of our own lives and the tragedy of suicide. This is because in its essence euthanasia (or doctor assisted suicide) is by its nature suicide. Now put aside the factors that lead people to this decision and ask yourself, is suicide a good thing? I think the answer for most of us is no, as it should be. Since killing ourselves goes against human nature objectively speaking suicide is morally wrong.

Now when considering those with serious illness does the morality of the act change? But before one answers this question I think a prior question needs to be answered. Is deep depression a serious illness? I think the answer is yes, and many psychologists and those who study the brain would agree, depression is an illness that can sometimes be incurable [1].

Now take into account how society responds to teenage, middle age, or any depression related suicide. We mourn, and we mourn because we all know that what has happened is a tragedy. We know that regardless of the individual’s illness their life was worth preserving and that this is a tragedy. So what message does this send to people with suicidal thoughts that if your illness is visible it's okay to kill yourself? But if you who are arguably just as sick with deep depression, killing yourself is a failure and a tragedy.

As a society we spend millions of dollars (and rightly so) to prevent suicide in our culture. Why then is it okay to also spend millions of dollars to publicly subsides and praise the suicide of others. Who gets to say to the 31 year old with deep depression that he isn't just as sick as the 91 year old with a tumor? Instead let’s promote one unified message to all people, your live if worth living until its natural end, and we will do whatever it takes to make it as liveable as possible.

Further Implications

In countries that have legalized euthanasia predictable trends have emerged. As I mentioned in my first point, questions start to be raised as to who gets to decide who dies? How can the government tell one person it’s okay and another it’s not? Well in the Netherlands they are learning the hard way that once you deny that suicide is objectively wrong, no one has the right to tell anyone else that suicide isn't a good option for them. Take the Dutch woman, who was allowed to die because of PTSD from sexual abuse.

"A woman in her 20s who suffered sexual abuse as a child has been permitted to undergo euthanasia in the Netherlands. She was given a lethal injection after doctors and psychiatrists determined that her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and continuing conditions including chronic depression and suicidal mood swings could not be cured." [2]

Or the Swiss woman, who was euthanized because she was "tired of life".

“She was not terminally ill, nor was she particularly severely disabled, yet she could not find much enjoyment in living anymore and felt the time was right to say goodbye.” [3]

The logical ramifications of saying suicide is not objectively wrong is that no one can say it’s wrong. And going back to my pervious point, if we can't say to young people it’s okay to kill yourself then we can't say it to anyone.

Alternative Options

My last point doesn't address why euthanasia is objectively wrong but rather why it's not needed as much as we think. Currently there exist options for those in incredible (physical) suffering to be given what is called palliative care. Palliative care doctors concentrate on preventing and alleviating suffering, improving your quality of life, and helping you and your loved ones cope with the stress and burden of your illness [4].

This kind of care can relive many of the symptoms of the terminally ill and provide them and their families with support through the process. This kind of option should it be properly funded would replace the need for euthanasia in our societies.

The last point on this is that studies have shown that terminally ill patients have chosen death mostly because of a loss of dignity.

"The primary reason given (in The Netherlands) for choosing euthanasia is “a loss of dignity". [5]

If we can show terminally ill patients that their lives and their comfort do matter through the use of palliative care then we eliminate the desire for euthanasia.


Euthanasia is wrong because of the mixed messages it sends, the implications it has on society, and the alternatives that make it unnecessary








In response to you original questions, I think I have answered, that just as we shouldn't allow young people with serious depressing to end their life we also shouldn't let people who have lost their dignity to do so. As far as the personal freedom argument goes we should not be free to do whatever we please but rather only what is right. Do the laws that say you can't chop your own arm off mean you aren’t free? No, because we should only have the freedom to do what is right not whatever we please.

Debate Round No. 2


Euthanasia should be legal for those who have serious physical illnesses, like ALS. Nobody should take away their right to life and liberty. Also, unless you are one suffering through a serious physical illness like ALS you can't say euthanasia is wrong, considering you don't understand what it's like to go through ALS. All you do know, is many of those who are diagnosed with ALS do not want to live through it.


You did not respond to any of my arguments so they still stand.

I have also addressed you’re arguments and shown they are logically unreasonable. Again you don't have the liberty to do whatever you want. I don't have the liberty to shoot you in the chest and others don't have the liberty to kill themselves.

As far me not being able to say euthanasia is wrong unless I have ALS the same then should be said about those with deep depression. If ALS is a good enough reason to kill yourself then so should depression. Except we spend millions each year in suicide prevention every year, so that logic makes no sense.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by one2one 1 year ago
I apologize for not asking if your opening statement was also your argument for your position. If you care to elaborate on each point do so in the next round. If not then just pass the torch to me and we'll go from there. Cheers
Posted by one2one 1 year ago
Why is the category religion if you don't want talk of God ?
Posted by canis 1 year ago
It is your/my life...? ..If not... Euthanasia should not be legal...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and grammar were not at issue in this debate. Con used sources that clearly backed up his (or her) arguments of mixed messages, further implications, and alternative options, while Pro used no sources whatsoever. As far as arguments go, Pro merely asked questions which were answered and dismissed quite easily by Con, and then failed to respond to any of Con's contentions. Because no response was given to Con's arguments, and Con's arguments negate the resolution, this debate overwhelmingly goes to Con.