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


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: 3/20/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,047 times Debate No: 72042
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)





Pro: For Euathanasia
Con: Against Euathasasia

My opponent will start first.....




Since Con has not clarified, let us have Merriam Webster define ‘euthanasia’ for us:

The act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. [1]


Burden of proof will be shared. RXR is against euthanasia in all instances, and I will be arguing for a limited euthanasia. If I am able to successfully argue for euthanasia in any case, then I will have met my burden. If RXR is able to successfully argue against euthanasia in all cases, then he should get your votes.

Euthanasia is a process by which an individual may have their doctor assist them with suicide. It is generally considered in cases in which a patient has an incurable illness that causes extreme and chronic pain. In these circumstances, an individual may wish to forgo their right to life and request death. There are different kinds of euthanasia, but I will only be advocating voluntary euthanasia (VE). VE is only justifiable when a person, completely cognizant of the implications, requests death for the purpose of ending suffering and/or die with integrity due to inevitable suffering. I will argue it is unethical to deny a competent request to die in such a situation.

Right to Die

Some have suggested we have a right to death. This is tied to the concept of death with integrity. When death is imminent, an individual may decide to end their life before an illness has reduced them to a shell of their former selves. In this way, they can end their own suffering before it becomes unbearable, and also save their family and friends the horror of witnessing a slow and painful decline of their loved one. A right to death follows from having dominion over one's own body.

Wasted resources

If we look at VE from a utilitarian aspect, then there is the matter of resources spent on people who wish to die - resources which could be better spent on ailments which are curable for patients who wish to live. By allowing VE we can increase the overall quality of care provided by hospitals by reducing time and money spent on many destined for imminent death.

Right to Life

My opponent will probably argue for a right to life, and I would like to preemptively address that now. No doubt, RXR and I will agree to a right to life. That is the right for an individual to expect life not to be unjustly unimpeded of it by other individuals. I would simply argue euthanasia does not violate this right. We all have the right to ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’, but my right to life should not disallow me from my right to pursuit of happiness or liberty, which in this case would be the single desire to have freedom from chronic suffering through death.

I look forward to my opponent’s argument against euthanasia as well as his rebuttal to my arguments. Good luck, Con!

Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Pro, here are my arguements. I will make better arguements in round two because i don't have alot of time in my hands.

Euthanasia Violates a Doctor's Purpose:

We can all agree that doctors should save lives, not end them. Euthanasia is no different. It ends a life without knowing if they will make a full recovery. For example, if a person in a coma was euthanized, we would never know if that person will wake up and live their normal life again. But euthanasia avoids this possibility and procceeds to end their life anyways. Doctors and nurses are suppose to care,nurture, and support a person in life support. Not end their life for the sake of convience.

Euthanasia is Immor

It is immoral because it ends an innocent human life, which is legal murder. Anyways ending an innocent human life is always wrong. It dehumanizes them of their right to live. None the less pro argues that it will end the patient's suffering but ending someones suffering isn't always morally right. For example, a man euthanized her daughter by suffocating her in his car. She was suffering from celebral pulsy. The man was later charged with second degree murder. This does not sound like a human choice.

Video: ----->

I will make more arguements on the right to life for round two. Anyways, good luck.



Thank you, Con! I look forward to your right to life argument in round 3.

Rebuttal: Euthanasia Violates a Doctor's Purpose.

“We can all agree that doctors should save lives, not end them.”

I would disagree with this statement. Obviously, a patient with a terminal illness is beyond saving, and the priority shifts to making them comfortable. If comfort cannot be had (and the patient requests death), then medical professionals are the most qualified persons to assist in achieving that desire humanely.

As to the specific examples Con provides (comatose patients), it requires a “non-voluntary” euthanasia which is death without consent or request. This is very different from what I set out to defend in round one (voluntary euthanasia), and requires no rebuttal from me.

Rebuttal: Euthanasia is Immoral.

Con has again argued for non-voluntary euthanasia with his example of euthanasia in which a father murdered his daughter with cerebral palsy. Not to mention, his example was not carried out with the assistance or guidance of medical professionals. This does not address voluntary euthanasia as established in round 1.

As far as the moral argument, it would be immoral to allow a dying person (or animal) to suffer a slow and painful death when we have the ability to end their pain quickly at their request.

Con has not addressed my arguments for voluntary euthanasia. Back to you, sir!

Debate Round No. 2


Rebuttal 1: Killing an innocent human being is not humane in any possible shape or form. Even if the patient is requesting death, they might suffer from depression or in a confused state that allows them to make risky desicions. They might regret it later on. And on to my next point, the defenition of a doctor is

noun doc·tor \G2;däk-tər\

: a person who is skilled in the science of medicine : a person who is trained and licensed to treat sick and injured people

No where does it say to assist suicide on their patients.

Rebuttal 2: It is also immoral for doctors to assist on terminating their patients life even though there job is to save and treat sick and injured people.

Arguement for life: Every person has a special place in this world and should be preserved. Euthanasia dehumanizes terminally-ill patients and robs them of their life. Innocent people should not be taken their life away just because of one desicion.

Definition Of Doctor:



Thank you, Con.

Rebuttal: Euthanasia Violates a Doctor's Purpose

Con argues honoring the wish to die of an individual suffering from an ailment/injury that will eventually take their life is inhumane.

-having or showing compassion or benevolence.
-marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals

Speeding up the process of death (as requested) to alleviate misery is humane. It is being compassionate and considerate in regards to their wishes.

Rebuttal: Euthanasia is Immoral

Sometimes death is the best treatment for a sick or injured person. It is a cold hard truth, and honoring the patients wishes to speed up that process is merciful and moral.

Rebuttal: Argument for life

I have already addressed this argument in round one. My right to life should not disallow me from my right to freedom (in this case freedom from pain) or pursuit of happiness.

Back to you, Con.
Debate Round No. 3


Rebuttal 1: Pro Fails to support why a doctor should euthanize their patients. My definiton still stands. The definition of a doctor is a

person who is skilled in the science of medicine : a person who is trained and licensed to treat sick and injured people. <-- No where does it say to terminate a patients life or speed up their patients death.

- Speeding up the process of death is not humane because
- It ends an innocent human life
- Shows that human life is disposable
- The patient could have been depressed and lost a sense of reasoning. And could have regretted it later on

This shows that a doctor can do a better job of killing their patients than caring for their medical needs. A doctor should not be judge, jury, executioner on their own patients.

Rebuttal 2: Death is not the answer to every terminally ill patient's problem because they could have been healed the next day. Instead the patients life is taken away just because he/she feels the need to end their life. Assisting a patient to their death is immoral because the doctor is
A.) Taking away a patients life instead of taking care of his medical needs.
B.) It is legally murdering someone. Or assisted suicide.



Thanks, Con!

Rebuttal 1

My opponent seems to be stuck on the fact that a doctor is trained to treat the sick or injured, but misses the underlying reason why one becomes a doctor: to help others. Sometimes, helping others is limited to respecting their wishes and doing everything possible to prevent suffering. I advocate for individuals medically trained to assist in euthanasia because having someone who is familiar with medical techniques is much more likely to administer a humane end. Otherwise, one must be content with an individual who is ignorant of the proper way to prevent suffering and allow for the possibly of causing more suffering or an agonizing death. At any rate, this is not crucial to my euthanasia case since it is about the right to have it, and not who administers it.

1. If a person if suffering, it is moral to do all that is in our power to stop it. Innocence is irrelevant and assumed by Con.
2. If we have the right to life, then we also have the right to death. The fact that an individual feels their potential is gone does not make their life disposable anymore than a natural death makes life disposable. At any rate, the value they put on their own life is much more relative than any value Con assumes.
3. I only advocate voluntary euthanasia when it can be competently requested by the patient. I do not assume someone who wishes to die is being irrational.

A patient who realizes 1. Death is near, 2. until the end their will be suffering, 3. family resources are being spent in vain on this suffering, may find euthanasia is reasonable.

Also, on a side note, I am not sure what is meant by "they will regret it later on". I know of no person doing anything intentionally after they have died, so this seems nonsensical to me.

Rebuttal 2:

"Death is not the answer to every terminally ill patient's problem because they could have been healed the next day. Instead the patients life is taken away just because he/she feels the need to end their life."

Perhaps, Con is not aware of what "terminally ill" means.

Terminally ill:
A person who is sick and is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life.

If a person is diagnosed as terminally ill, it is because there is no treatment that can make them better.

A.) I addressed why I believe a medically trained individual should assist. Con is welcome to disagree with my reasoning. I will leave that for the voters to determine.
B.) "It is legally murdering someone."

Perhaps, Con is not aware you cannot 'murder' someone legally. That is an oxymoron. Plus, I have not encouraged any illegal activity.

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Thanks, Con. You have the floor!

Debate Round No. 4


nice debate, i have no more arguements


Thank you, sir. It has been an interesting discussion.

Vote Pro!

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Skepticalone 3 years ago

Sorry, I left the definition source off.
Posted by Surrealism 3 years ago
There is no reason you couldn't have just made it bold. That would have been just as eye catching without being ugly as well.
Posted by RXR 3 years ago
So it can be eye catching.
Posted by Skepticalone 3 years ago
I'll post my argument later tonight.
Posted by Surrealism 3 years ago
Gah my eyes! Why would you put all of your text in bold, italics, and underlines!??!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kozu 3 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 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: Con begins by stating that doctors lives are to save people and that euthanasia of any kind is inherently immoral because it prohibits human life. He gives an example of non-VE to prove this, however Pro is arguing for VE so his example is irrelevent here. Pro believe that liberty trumps ones right to life and says that we should allow VE because it essentially prevents gratuitous suffering especially when the patient may die soon anyway. Con offers no alternative to preventing this suffering but instead reaffirms that any kind of killing is wrong. Even if that mean people must suffer for long periods of time, who also want to die. Con needed to demonstrate why it's a good idea to let these people live despite the condition their in, he has not done this. Pro shows that VE can even save hospitals money which in turn would save more lives, but with Cons idea, we would see more people die and suffer than we would with VE.