The Instigator
Shaily
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Animaster7
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Euthanasia should be legalised.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Animaster7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 881 times Debate No: 112806
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Shaily

Con

Euthanasia should not be legalised.It is more like making disabled feel unequal then armed.Also, giving more powers in the hands of doctors is unsafe.They may use it whichever way.
Animaster7

Pro

Euthanasia should be legalised. How would you feel if, each breath you take in feels like a hot spike shooting through your stomach and chest? If each step you take makes you want to hurl. If you were told that, in a month or so you were bound to die, and even though everything is so painful you have to keep on trudging through life to finally reach the peace offered by death?

The definition of euthanasia is as follows: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy (Merriam-Webster).

Euthanasia is essentially giving someone permission to commit suicide (or if they cannot do so, a doctor helping them commit suicide). People need this permission because suicide is technically illegal, and they must obtain this permission from doctors. Once they have, the doctor will proceed to either kill the patient (in the case that the patient cannot kill themselves) or observe the patient's death to make sure it is as painless as possible. The patients usually die pretty peacefully by overdosing on some kind of drug. A DOCTOR MUST OBTAIN THE PATIENT'S CONSENT BEFORE EUTHANIZING THEM. If they do not, they are breaking the law and committing murder, not an act of euthanasia. Legalizing euthanasia won't give doctors the power to kill people whenever they want. This is true for every jurisdiction I know of.

You say that legalizing euthanasia will make the disabled people feel unequal? Why, because they are legally allowed to commit suicide and people who aren't disabled aren't? I don't quite understand. People only try to be euthanized if they want a relatively painless and controlled death. Otherwise, one could just commit suicide normally. Besides, legalizing euthanasia doesn't mean you have to use it. If you want to struggle for life to the very end, well, there's nothing wrong with that.
Debate Round No. 1
Shaily

Con

Since many doctors now ,instead of passion treat it as occupation especially the unscrupulous ones will seize this opportunity.Drug prescription is in doctors hand and Patient's consent can be manipulated .If this got worse then they can even become murder machine.
If Murder in the name of euthanasia would be legalised then we must be ready to face the consequences with the outbreak of law disobedience.

Euthanasia perhaps target vulnerables to end their lives (suicide).
Euthanasia will certainly increase the death counts.
Animaster7

Pro

There do exist doctors who euthanize patients without consent. However, I think it's quite safe to assume that most doctors do not want to kill their patients. Sure, a lot of people only become doctors for the money. But even in the case of these doctors, only a few of them would be willing to kill off a patient.* As far as I know, only people with painful disabilities or those who are terminally ill may be euthanized. I believe the Netherlands has some rather lax laws regarding euthanasia, which I do not agree with. To be specific, I agree that euthanasia should only be allowed for people with painful disabilities or people who are terminally ill.
Even though evil doctors might try to commit murder with euthanasia, I still think it should be legalized. Just because it can be potentially used for evil doesn't mean that it should be banned. If we're going to ban euthanasia, we should ban guns too (in the case of the US). How about banning alcohol as well, that causes a lot of deaths! And smoking should be banned as well! Maybe we should ban cars as well, just to make sure nobody dies in car accidents.
As you can see, many things that can cause harm are still legal. Why? Because they have the potential to be used for good. Car accidents will probably kill more people than evil doctors administering euthanasia ever will.
There are also many laws preventing people who don't have terminal illnesses or painful disabilities from being euthanized. The Netherlands may be an exception, but a large portion of countries have laws preventing people from committing suicide through euthanasia.

*In most cases of doctors administering euthanasia without consent, it is because the higher ups in the hospital are attempting to save resources. In these cases, some terminally ill and people with dementia people may be euthanized without explicit, or any, consent from the person themselves.
Debate Round No. 2
Shaily

Con

There is not point in legalising a law when you have to modify it or set any demarcation between disabilities or painful disabilities. Every illness is painful but we have hopes to conquer it. Ending lives is not a solution to the problem.
For instance they encountered a disease, which is not identified yet ,is painful so according to these laws euthanasia is solution?
We are ending hopes here and putting an end to innovation in pharmaceuticals.

Banning alcohol and smoking is another point of discussion, but banning car is surely a ban to mankind development.
Apparently ,this not the case with euthanasia. Why to add one more in the list.?
These Laws will prevent people from commiting suicide but encourage murders and end our hopes.
Animaster7

Pro

Euthanasia is only there so that patients have a choice. Euthanasia isn't a solution, it's a relief from pain that the patient can choose if they want to. If they don't want to be euthanized, then they won't (shouldn't) be euthanized. Euthanasia is there if you decide you want to give up. Without euthanasia, patients are unable to give up at all unless they commit suicide, which is illegal (in my country at least). I approve of struggling against painful illnesses or disabilities, but if the patient wants to die in a relatively painless way, then I think they should have that choice too. There is also the case of terminally ill people - people who are almost guaranteed to die anyway. These people may want to choose when they die. Euthanasia in this case can be seen as one rebelling against the illness. Rather than letting the illness destroy and ravage their minds and bodies, and kill them in any random moment, the patient chooses a controlled, peaceful and painless death. As well, many diseases can cause one's form to deteriorate. The end result is that they look unattractive and miserable. To prevent this, people can be euthanized before the illness does so much damage to the body. The euthanized patient will have died in a peaceful state of mind, happy and peaceful, and still looking like a normal person.
Euthanasia won't stop innovation in pharmaceuticals. As far as I can tell, NOTHING, will stop innovation in pharmaceuticals. Humans are like that - we don't care if we need to torture animals, or be a bit sneaky with the law - we'll do anything to make the money that can be made.
I would also like to make another point. Euthanasia can be good for the patients family and loved ones too. Instead of the patient suddenly dying without notice, the patient's loved ones will know when the death occurs and can be by the person's side when the time comes. This would probably be very beneficial for the patient's mental health. Having a controlled death can also allow one to leave the world without regrets, as they would know exactly when they would die and be able to accomplish and wrap up any unfinished business they have in the world.

It's been fun debating with you, this is my first debate I've ever participated in on this site.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Emily77// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Though I am with pro on this issue, I acknowledge that there are a great many reasons from moral, legal, religious and practical domains that can make this issue difficult. I feel as though very few of these substantive reasons were touched upon, and Con offered very little creativity or ingenuity in making arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct or S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific arguments made in the debate. That requires more than just stating what one side could have done in the debate, or even generalizing about their creativity or ingenuity.
************************************************************************
Posted by Wizofoz 3 years ago
Wizofoz
Revised comments-

Cons initial argument was an assertion regarding the way it would make disabled people feel, and that doctors should not have too much power, with minimal explanation and no citation.

Pro made an eloquent opening, defining euthanasia, and justifying it in terms of it being a right to choose ones fate. He rightly points out that Cons statement regarding the disabled does not make much sense.

Con then makes further assertions regarding doctors motives, very general and again without citation.

Pro makes a valid refutation, pointing out the wrongdoing of some should not effect the rights of all, and pointing out many cases of unlawful euthanasia currently practiced are out of compassion.

Cons next statements make little sense- the only coherent point being made was that it would discourage innovations in medicine- but even this is not explained well nor supported by citation.

Pro then sums up his case effectively, while pointing out the weakness in cons assertions regarding pharmaceutical development.

Points- I agreed with Pro before and after, Pro gets the point for valid arguments. Con could improve his grammar, but it was coherent enough to be discernable- win to Pro.
Posted by Wizofoz 3 years ago
Wizofoz
Cons initial argument was an assertion regarding the way it would make disabled people feel, and that doctors should not have too much power, with minimal explanation and no citation.

Pro made an eloquent opening, defining euthanasia, and justifying it in terms of it being a right to choose ones fate. He rightly points out that Cons statement regarding the disabled does not make much sense.

Con then makes further assertions regarding doctors motives, very general and again without citation.

Pro makes a valid refutation, pointing out the wrongdoing of some should not effect the rights of all, and pointing out many cases of unlawful euthanasia currently practiced are out of compassion.

Cons next statements make little sense- the only coherent point being made was that it would discourage innovations in medicine- but even this is not explained well nor supported by citation.

Pro then sums up his case effectively, while pointing out the weakness in cons assertions regarding pharmaceutical development.

Points- I agreed with Pro before and after, Pro gets the point for valid arguments and S&G as con made numerous grammatical error.
Posted by Animaster7 3 years ago
Animaster7
@Kats11
Hello, thank you for commenting.
I certainly believe in a single, omnipotent God.
However, it's not like I can prove the existence of God, nor can you. God exists spiritually, and doesn't have firm supports in logic.
Since Debate.org is a public community with all kinds of beliefs, I don't think one can debate using God, unless the debate specifies so.
Also, if you believe in destiny, then wouldn't it the person's destiny to be euthanized? And if destiny exists, then technically nothing we do is by our own will, and if we are sinners then it is destiny's fault that we are sinners. Why would God tell us not to do things, and then use destiny to force us to do them anyway? It doesn't make sense, right? I don't believe in destiny, not if we're talking about the benevolent, righteous God of the Bible.
Anyways, my original point was, since this debate doesn't specify that God exists, I don't need to consider whether euthanasia is moral in the context of the Bible.
Also, if you happen to vote in this debate, I ask that you vote based on how well we debated, and not with your own opinions.
Thanks!
Posted by Kats11 3 years ago
Kats11
Hi friend EUTHANASIA is never be a good option to be opted.
Everyone has its right to live and die . But life and death is God own decision you just can't handover extreme right in hands of doctor to take life.
Doctor are meant to solve your health issue not to release you from every pain
And it's a part for one life decided by the destiny to suffer pain or live happily.
You can not let any person to take charge for taking life even the patient wants it more than any thing
Ya it's true it's hard to live with pain but it's a part of life you have to live or die with that.
And if one gets the right to take life then it's easy to murder any one on behalf of the law.
So it's not a good decision to legalise such law.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wizofoz 3 years ago
Wizofoz
ShailyAnimaster7Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons initial argument was an assertion regarding the way it would make disabled people feel, and that doctors should not have too much power, with minimal explanation and no citation. Pro made an eloquent opening, defining euthanasia, and justifying it in terms of it being a right to choose ones fate. He rightly points out that Cons statement regarding the disabled does not make much sense. Con then makes further assertions regarding doctors motives, very general and again without citation. Pro makes a valid refutation, pointing out the wrongdoing of some should not effect the rights of all, and pointing out many cases of unlawful euthanasia currently practiced are out of compassion. Cons next statements make little sense- the only coherent point being made was that it would discourage innovations in medicine- but even this is not explained well nor supported by citation.

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