The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Euthanasia should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
debatojenvo has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,617 times Debate No: 101617
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Round 1: Only for acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments, no rebuttals
Round 3: Arguments and rebuttals.
Round 4: Finishing rebuttals and conclusions, no new arguments
And don't put religious beliefs and religious arguments into this because then it will turn into a debate on whether god is real or not.

I believe that euthanasia should be legal in countries that it is not legal in.

Let me just put in that the definition of euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from a terminal illness.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I think that Euthanasia should be legal for a couple of reasons.

By the way by legalising euthanasia i mean legalising voluntary euthanasia

1. The patients are going to die soon( very painful deaths in some cases ) and they are suffering from a terminal illness which will cause them lots of pain until they die and there isn't a cure, so why live waiting to die a painful death when you can die straightaway with no pain at all.

2. People have the right to die and in some cases such as euthanasia people don't have the right to die because they need a doctor's help. It is still the patient's choice on whether to have euthanasia it is just that the patient need the doctor's help to kill him/her self.

3. Putting a person in pain that is incurable and watching them die a painful death is evil which is why euthanasia should be legal, euthanasia doesn't even hurt so why let a patient die a painful death when they want to do it by euthanasia and not by incurable pain.


I am arguing against legalized voluntary euthanasia for the following reasons:


Though oft supported as a just and superior alternative for patient suffering, this agenda masks the reality of prevalent abuse to the practice of euthanasia. With a system as precarious as this one is, it’s no surprise the facilitation of death is concurrent with medical malpractice and lethargic abuse. For instance, in Belgium, the physician is the prescribed individual to carry out the procedure of euthanasia, for purposes of technicality, but also procedural accuracy and for abiding by the law. A study conducted by Els Inghelbrecht, MA, (among others) conducted a study which found the nurses had actually been the ones carrying out these life-ending procedures. [1] Not only is this an infringement of the law and potentially hazardous, it is indeed indicative of abuse in Belgium. If the policy is abused, what is to prevent abuse from carrying over to other nations?

However, incorrect medical workers carrying out the procedure isn’t the only problem with the abuse of euthanasia. Statistical analysis has shown half of euthanasia cases are not reported. [5] This indicates euthanasia procedures are being done in supposed secrecy, without warning or even notifying other physicians to agree the euthanization was necessary. A second opinion is often necessary for accuracy. Without this, it’s a broader opportunity for medical professionals to err.

Moreover, another large issue plagues the procedure’s morality. Another article contributed to by Freddy Mortier, PhD, (among others) exemplified “half of cases of assisted death are performed without the patient’s explicit request...” [2] Essentially, euthanizations are being done without permission from the patients. This is clearly immoral and wrong.


As a result of the preceding contention, euthanasia can end up as murder. When fateful procedures such as these are being executed without consent, it is no longer a mutual agreement to end a patient’s life; it is instead taking someone’s life without consent, which is, by definition, murder. [3] Murder is unacceptable. David Lanham of University of Melbourne furthers this argument by quoting, “For present purposes, murder can be defined as the intentional unjustified, inexcused and legally unmitigated killing of another human being. Active euthanasia fits this definition on the basis that it is the, or a cause of, death.” [4] Murder is punishable by law, yet it is contradictory to allow another form of murder to go on simultaneously without punishment of any kind. In actuality, the system of euthanasia is often praised. However, when abuse becomes public, it’s imperative to recognize the system can and does result in murder.

Violation of a Doctor’s Duty:

The foremost and primary duty of a doctor is to assist and help their patients. In so doing, they are bound by the Hippocratic Oath. By the very expression of the Oath, euthanization is a violation of a doctor’s duty. Newsweek explains the Oath and how it pertains to the procedure of euthanasia. “The Hippocratic Oath proclaims: “I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” This is an essential precept for a flourishing civil society. No one, especially a doctor, should be permitted to kill intentionally, or assist in killing intentionally, an innocent neighbor.” [6]


The the conclusion is this, euthanasia is a failure as public policy. As such, it should not be legalized.







Debate Round No. 2


I will do my rebuttals first

1. I kind of could use that argument to be for euthanasia. For example euthanasia has been performed illegally in other nations but if we legalise it the crime rate would drop and people would stop doing euthanasia illegally because it would be legal.

2. I haven't got a rebuttal for half of the cases being done without consent but I've got a solution, they record the patient giving consent so the physician's got proof that the patient that got euthanized gave consent . The same solution for murder.

3. Actually euthanasia isn't against a violation of a doctor's duty in countries that euthanasia is legal in so if euthanasia was legalised it wouldn't be a violation of a doctor's duty because it is legal then.

People who want euthanasia but are not getting it are being forced to be alive and I think being forced to be alive when you don't want to be alive is very wrong, it is a person choice on whether they want to live or die. Suicide is legal so why can't this be for this reason.



1. "Patients are giong to die soon..."

This argument is unconvincing. Voluntary euthanasia damages societal views of the sanctity of life and often times allows people to choose death who would live. Also, it forwards the idea that some people's lives are worth more than others. If doctor's can legally take one life, that assumes the other life is worth more. Likewise, doctors often misdiagnose, at an alarming rate of 10 to 20% [1] This means that patients could possibly live much longer, but instead are killed. Especially given the abuse of euthanasia, it is a terrible policy that gives way to unwarranted killing.

2. "People have the right to die..."

This argument validates all sorts of problems in the world. If we hold "the right to die" that validates suicide, which plagues families at an awful level. The medical field is also advancing at an exceptional rate, and reducing the pain patients undergo.

3. "Putting a person in pain..."

These arguments really all sound the same. Refer to my rebuttals above.

My arguments:

1. My opponent's response to the first argument is very flawed. The argument is not that euthanasia is illegal, but that the procedure itself is being abused. So while euthanasia is already legal, it is being performed in a way that is illegal and lends itself to wrongful killings. [2] Furthermore, legalizing something doesn't by virtue make it right. Abuse will still happen. Also, the other arguments I presented in regard to abuse were also done WHILE euthanasia was legal. So, it doesn't matter the legality of euthanasia, the policy itself is failed and renders recurring abuse, harming patients and undermining the integrity of the health system.

2. My opponent drops the argument made about the cases being done without consent. Her solution also doesn't apply because if they don't GIVE consent, it cannot be recorded. This argument is entirely dropped by my opponent, and stands for my side. What we have is a policy which leads to killings without the consent or request of the patient -- essentially becoming nothing short of murder.

3. This rebuttal misses the point. The objective of a doctor is to keep the patient safe. The Hippocratic Oath, I would remind everyone, states: "I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect." [3] So, regardless of the legality of a policy, it undermines the core duty of the doctor.

4. "People who want euthanasia..."

Like the others I have already addressed, this argument is weak, and counterbalanced by the fact that legality of euthanasia leads to people who DON'T want to be killed being killed. If a person wants to kill themself, that is their own option. However, they should not be allowed to have others, whose intention is to help them, do it for them. Otherwise, they will die naturally. Furthermore, it is not in the best interest of the health system to have such an abusive policy in place that leads to wrongful killings and undermines the very core duty of doctors.


Since my opponent has dropped the majority of my arguments, or not directly addressed them, my case stands. I have addressed my opponent's arguments and refuted them. Vote con.


Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ColeTrain 3 years ago
Could you change it to 72 hrs for response time and 8,000 characters? If so, I'll accept it :)
Posted by Deonatus 3 years ago
I would accept but I don't fit the "innovator's age and or rank criteria".
Posted by Capitalistslave 3 years ago
I assume this would be done against the will of the patient? I would think so, otherwise you would have called this assisted suicide.
Posted by Shocky190 3 years ago
I guess I could take a stab at this for my first debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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