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

Euthanasia. Cruel killing or relief

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,389 times Debate No: 37761
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Firstly, I would like to thank my opponent on accepting challenge.
Secondly, I ask you to follow the basic rules of debates.

To be honest, I do not see an euthanasia as a controversial question or why people feel ambivalent about it.
For me, the only reason to hesitate is a question of morality, moreover, for some, it's a question of religion. However, emotional pain which may last for God-knows how long does not even stand near the physical condition of patient who is terminally ill. That's why euthanasia is also know as "mercy killing", because it relieves pain and suffer from patient. Next, this decision is made by patient himself or his agent, of course, patient can be not sane enough to make such a step, but it should not be a concern for doctors or even family, after all, it is his right to decide and by leaving a "living will" he takes full responsibility.
Next point is that it is simply a question of money to prolong treatment or to hold patient connected to the life support system. Even if patient undergoes treatment on governmental money, still money of disinterested party are wasted. And again, living in a constant pain is not a life.


To begin with, any mercy kill can turn out to have bee erroneous. Life support as a treatment method has proved to be successful in saving patients' lives, even if in a very small percent of occasions. Preventing this from happening (even if you consider it a relief from an insufferable condition) can be against the patient's ACTUAL/UNBIASED will. Let's take this into consideration - the patient/agent might be aiding for the euthanasia simply because he is suffering. Would anyone think the same about "relief" after his life were saved? The answer is obvious - if one lives out you never hear "the doctors must have killed me back then, it would be a relief".
Let's not forget - killing is a possible solution for suffering, but it's a constant solution to a probably temporary problem.
Secondly, unless the situation is considered hopeless by professionals, the feelings of patients/relatives about the situation should not affect and get in the way of the process of treatment, that is also the main reason of medics not giving away details of some cases. While in reality the condition might not be that intense, (especially in cases where not the patient himself decides to end his life) one can easily exaggerate the situation in accordance of his bias towards the condition causing too much for the patient to bear.
Which brings us to the next , more philosophical question - "what is too much to bear?". Especially in cases when the patient isn't very old, if this the last thing one experiences in life, would one rather give in to pain and surrender or stand up until the very end. After all, one's life is at stake, and usually life is the dearest one has. Even if the chances are minimal, choice is still there - die now, or suffer and have a chance to live.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, euthanasia is a very complicated procedure which is not carried away immediately. It needs a long consideration and any possible testaments that illness is not terminal or inoperable. Next, the point about intensive care units, I would rather disagree with that. THERE ARE occasions when people in near-death condition made it, but, it depends about what diagnosis we are talking about. Mostly, doctors use this treatment when nothing else helps, because it is considered as extremely painful one. Here are some links: And generally, in those occasions patience don't have a chance to live.
Secondly, well, anything can be erroneous: starting from daily routine issues to a decision to prosecution. Which brings me to the question, how can you know it was a mistake if we consider that diagnosis is right as other procedures? That is just vague idea, something that can't be known after it's done.
Moreover, euthanasia is conducted by professionals, so that to prevent a regretful decision as killing oneself in vain.
Philosophical questions are all treated differently with the accordance of someone's beliefs. Not saying that this point is not right, but other questions might pop up, like the question of existence and the need to live life, and they are all perceived differently.
What I want to say is that people should struggle till the very bearable end, but I don't think that such a solution must be prohibited.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: con gave up in the last round

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