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


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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 875 times Debate No: 88453
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Could someone please tell me the good that comes from Euthanasia? I don't understand what good can come from killing someone. Life is A beautiful gift. We are called to love one another and respect each other as human beings. Even when someone is suffering immense pain and anguish, life can still be full of joy and happiness. Since Euthanasia is the end all choice and after that decision there are no more decisions... Why are we promoting it? It seems to me that we should be focusing more on trying to pull out and show these people what good can come from life, by loving them cherishing their life as A blessing and making their final days here full of love, instead of focusing on the unfortunate situation they are in and then killing them. It all seems so backwards to me.


"The word "euthanasia" comes from the Greek -- "eu" meaning "goodly or well" + "thanatos" meaning "death." So, euthanasia is literally the "good death." In 18th-century England, that was what euthanasia meant, a "good" death, a welcome way to depart quietly and well from life." This was stated in the article by Medicinenet.

So looking at this we can see that Euthanasia is a "Good Death". But what else is Euthanasia and how is this so?
- It can be performed painlessly
- It allows one to skip through the pain and anguish you talked about and go straight to death and to be in peace.
- There are two forms of Euthanasia: One is Active and the Other is Passive.
- Active Euthanasia: Where a VOLUNTARY patient who is deemed conscious of their actions can decide to painlessly end their life.
- Passive Euthanasia: Where a VOLUNTARY patient can decide to reject treatment. This is not killing yourself but allowing yourself to die when your body dies. Instead of filling your body with drugs and tubes and needles. This is basically as natural as it gets, just die when your die, and live till then.
Euthanasia can also be a "dignified death", such as a person who is worn out and tired doesnt want to die in pain and their loved ones to see them in pain, so they may choose Euthanasia so they can see their loved ones while they are still happy and relived of pain and then pass away in peace. Rather than being prolonged for years on end without dying, always in hospice care or on the bed somewhere, not able to go to the bathroom on your own, ect.... For years that would be torture. If anything Euthanasia is one of the kindest and most humane things we can do for people, and remember its an option, not something that a Doctor can prescribe you with lol. "Oh it seems you will be in pain for a lot of years, let me just end that now for you?" Lol no that wouldnt happen, if the Patient wants Euthanasia they can get it, if they dont, then they can just continue on like anyother person. No harm, no foul.

Remember just because Euthanasia is an option doesnt mean everyone will take that option, and even if someone accepts Euthanasia doesnt mean that people dont love them. They may extremely happy, but in pain and thats why they may want to choose Euthanasia, so they can "End on a High Note."

You defined that Euthanasia is the end of all choice and the are no more decisions after that, by that logic I assume you believe there is nothing after Death. In that case, the obvious choice is Euthanasia, because you are in pain and anguish without relief and once you die, you will no longer feel pain. You wouldnt regret your choice, or anything, you would just be gone. Is this good or bad? Can't say, humans like to define Death as a bad thing, however it is something we will all achieve, dying now or tomorrow, nothing is different if there is nothing that awaits. Its a bit illogical to sustain someones lifespan using painful methods so they can die at a later time in pain. Rather than just letting the old, tired, worn out, in pain person to find some relief through Euthanasia. Nothing is stated that you can't love a person who is going through Euthanasia and try to make the last moments their best. Same situation whether the person is going through Euthanasia or not, you can still try to make them have the best time till death. Especially with Passive Euthanasia you will have enough time to talk to them, after all they are only refusing treatment.
Debate Round No. 1


I understand that Euthanasia means "good death", but A good death had A completely different meaning back then. When someone would talk about Euthanasia, or Euthanizing someone, it would often be A priest, and he was implying that he was going to distribute the sacrament of "anointing of the sick", not end someones life. It was more of A way to prepare someone so that they could have A "good death".

And I understand that it can be performed painlessly, but isn't life more than just trying to avoid pain?

Indeed there are two types Active and Passive, but for those who choose Active Euthanasia, how "conscious" of their decision are they really? Most of these individuals, approximately 93%, are suffering from some sort of mental illness. Particularly depression. They've lost the hope to live and life has become rather pointless in their minds. They are suffering from A chemical imbalance and need help.

You say that these people could be completely happy, but as I just said 93% of people who choose this path are not. What if instead of "ending them on A High not" by killing them, we treat them with Love and try to reverse this chemical imbalance that they are suffering from. By loving these people and showing them that their life truly has A purpose, wouldn't that be much more humane and beneficial for that persons life and all those around them, opposed to completely ending it?

Also, simply because I say that suicide is the final decision does not mean that I don't believe anything comes after this life. It simply means that by choosing suicide there are no more choices.. Because they are dead.

I would like to say that the question, "Oh it seems you will be in pain for a lot of years, let me just end that now for you?"
Is actually A question that people are beginning to receive quite often in countries and states where Euthanasia has been
legalized. This question is even being pushed onto children in places like Belgium where people want children to be able to choose whether or not to kill themselves.

What if we took A different approach to loving people, all people the way these people did :


Now that we both understand Euthanasia is meant to give those suffering a "Good Death" it seems your arguement is that YOU personally think it is morally incorrect.

So lets hit some points:

First: We have already established that Euthanasia is NOT killing someone. However you stated "What if instead of "ending them on A High note" by killing them, we treat them with Love and try to reverse this chemical imbalance that they are suffering from." They are not being killed, if we see they have a chemical imbalance then we have evidence they are not in the Right of Mind hence those with chemical imbalances wouldnt qualify for Euthanasia. So off the back we can throw that arguement out because it does not pertain to Euthanasia.

Second: You posted arguements using your source:
However the information you stated was confused. If you read closely it states "Few people, if any, simply sit down and make a cool, rational decision to commit suicide. In fact, studies have indicated that 93-94%, of those committing suicide, suffer from some identifiable mental disorder. " This is talking about Suicide in general, not about those who decide to have Euthanasia. In Euthanasia, it is a must that the patient is in the of the right mind. So automatically we can trash that part of the arguement as well.

Third: You use the same 93% of people from the study about those who commit suicide and try to say that represents Euthanasia. However as previously shown this is false, the study you gave did not state that 93% of people who go through Euthanasia are unhappy. Also you took my words from a hypothetical scenario is was giving, stating that someone may want to end their life on a "High Note" instead of having their family watch them suffer as they die. Maybe they dont have family and just dont want to go through the pain period.

Fourth: Just because someone asks a question does not mean people are being forced to Euthanasia. Also that was suppose to be a small joke that you took out of context about the Doctor saying "Why don't I end your life here and now?" because a Doctor would not have the ability to do that, and only would be allowed to perform the operation with a patient volunteering with a clear mind.

Fifth: You have not shown a single actual reason why Euthanasia would be a bad thing. You state "By loving these people and showing them that their life truly has A purpose, wouldn't that be much more humane and beneficial for that persons life and all those around them, opposed to completely ending it?" No one stated that you can't love someone who chooses Euthanasia. A) the person can choose whether to perform Euthanasia or not. B) No one said you couldn't show love. C) We would not be ending their life, the person choosing Euthanasia would!

Sixth: I see you have narrowed your arguement down to Active Euthanasia as well, so I shall assume that since you had no refutations towards Passive Euthanasia that it is okay? Passive Euthanasia is still Euthanasia so if you disapprove of Euthanasia you must also show why Passive Euthanasia is a bad thing.

Seventh: As I have stated before, your agruement is based off your moral background, you believe that everyone should strive for life no matter what (Not that I dislike your idealogy, its a great thing) but the fact is, people suffer. Should people kill themselves if they are suffering? Not saying you should, but under certain circumstances would it not be seen as morally correct to end your own life? Such as jumping infront of a bullet to save another. That is normally accepted as a "Good thing". So death under circumstances isnt always seen as the something so "bad". So why is it seen as so bad, if someone wanted some peace! I am not saying every single patient in pain would go through Euthanasia! Its the person's choice! But think about it, your dying, and you know this, every day is painful, you are told you have 10 years more of this, never being able to go to the rest room on your own, always being given your prescriptions to keep you alive a little longer, and so much more. No matter the Love given to that person, they are still going to be suffering from those things, and it should be their choice to get relief!

Eighth, Lets say for example, just assume Euthanasia did get legalized. It is possible that no one would use it. But if they wanted to, they could. Remember, dying is something anyone can do almost anywhere. Just because it is possible to die, doesnt mean everyone will. But for that one old man, who has been pushing for years and is constantly being forced through procedures and drugs and air tubes, needs help to even go to the restroom ect.... For possibly for that one person who can't handle it any more and everything hurts, why would it be wrong to give them the OPTION to have some peace? The OPTION to refuse treatment. Maybe that Old Man I used as example doesnt want to go through Active Euthanasia but instead Passive Euthanasia, and just to die when he dies, living happily with family and love till then, and he doesnt have to be pumped up with drugs, IVs, hooked up to air tubes, ect...

So what truly is more humane? To force someone to daily get poked by needles and filled with drugs just to keep them alive a little longer even if it makes them miserable, or to give them the choice to say, "I will die when I die." OR if they are in EXTREME pain, and really want it to stop and no drugs can help, give them the choice to say "Ok, I give, its too much, give me peace." Regardless of their choice, that doesnt mean you can't show these people love! Overall, from this we can see that, Euthanasia is NOT killing but a choice, morally it can be correct, Passive Euthanasia has received no refutations, and overall there has been no reasons why it should not be allowed.
Debate Round No. 2


I see nothing wrong with choosing to refuse treatment and die naturally, If that's the definition of passive Euthanasia then I am for passive Euthanasia. There is nothing immoral about dying naturally.

I am only against active Euthanasia where someone chooses to intentionally end their life by either killing themselves or having someone kill them... BEFORE they would have otherwise died naturally...

I don't understand how you can say Euthanasia is not killing someone.. that makes no sense to me?... It definitely is.

[yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on
Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition.^

Euthanasia is suicide... (Someone Consciously choosing to end their life) So the study I provided before is valid and applies to this debate.... Euthanasia is actually quite often referred to as "Assisted Suicide"


And as far as the 93% being unhappy, That applies to the fact that the majority of these people who commit (Euthanasia/Suicide)... (same thing)...are suffering from depression. That's the main mental illness. My apologies for using 93%... I'm not sure of the exact percentage of the total 93%, but the number is high and I know it's the majority (that's suffering from depression).

Even if they don't have A family... which is A very sad situation.. doesn't mean that they should kill themselves. We are supposed to be brothers and sisters towards each other, which is why I propose more people need to be there for these elderly people with no families, so that they don't have to die alone. Not only would the end of their days be more joyous but through the suffering they are experiencing love and compassion could be drawn out from the people around them, whether direct family or not.

And although yes, you can refuse this treatment, the question itself can be very demeaning. Especially when your insurance company deicides that your life isn't worth the 4,000$/month CHEMO but then offers to pay the 50$ to administer lethal drugs.

By killing these people we are not loving them. It is never A loving act to kill someone, even if they're in pain and have lost the will to live. It IS ALWAYS more loving to try and get them to see the value in life, their life in particular and how great A gift it truly is and how great A gift suffering is and how it prepares us for the afterlife.

Dying however so that someone else may live is indeed very honorable as long as the intention is not to die themselves but rather completely focused on the fact that the other(s) may live.. case in point... jumping on a grenade to save ones platoon.

It all comes down to the intention of the individual, which I argue cannot be to directly end their own life.

Finally I would like to point out that if you don't believe that there is A life after this life, then all my points are invalid and mean nothing to you. Everything I say is based off the fact that there is an Afterlife and that we as human beings are not merely flesh but a body soul unity which separates once we die.


Seeing as you have nothing wrong with Passive Euthanasia that is half of my argument that you have just conceded to. Meaning that you believe Euthanasia with a certain method and circumstance is okay.

As for how Euthanasia is not killing someone, let me explain. You have stated many times throughout this debate that Euthanasia is Suicide. However you now state it is killing someone. You cannot have it both ways. Euthanasia is either the killing of someone else or that person committing suicide. Secondly no one can just kill a patient, it requires the patients voluntary choice. Here is a quote from your own sources: "The law requires that a patient"s free decision has to be established before medical doctors can give the lethal injections." (This is mostly about a man who is sad his mother decided to have Euthanasia and he doesnt want to believe that its right that she could decide to end her life without his say so. However he had no right in the say whether she had to live or die, remember it was her life, hence her decision, not his. She was seen as mentally ill, however was found to have coherent choice as per the law requires. The man also states that he was not notified, well that may just simply be our communication system at fault, but not Euthanasia itself. Euthanasia is not notifying relatives, it is giving people the peace that they ask for. Simple as that.

This goes on to say how can we trust a mentally ill patients free choices? By this very same logic we can say that someone depressed cannot make choices on their own. However this is simply an assumption. I would like to state the fact that seen before 1 in 5 people in America have a "mental illness".

So by you saying that mentally ill cannot choose for themselves you are also stating the one fifth of all America cannot choose for themselves. America define mental illness so vaguely that under the right circumstances and right questions asked we all could be mentally ill. I mean depression is a mental illness, so if I ever feel horribly sad and dont want to do anything, then I am depressed hence mentally ill, and by your logic unable to make choices. However it is our choices that bring us to the illnesses. Our actions shape our brains physically and neurologically. "Every time you have a thought, there"s a change in your brain,". In actuality we all are in a sense mentally ill, and by your stance no one can make an accurate decision of what they want. I do agree that "Free Choice" is something that is being used like crazy nowadays however for Euthanasia, it should be available to all who can be seen to have a choice. Even the mentally ill. Remember there is many types of mental illness, not all make your choices incoherent.

To deny a mentally ill patient of its free choice is to deny their rights. Are we going to treat mentally ill as not human? Mental Health Therapist and the like are all people who rely on the sound and coherent words and choices of the mentally ill patient too give them proper treatment. If we can take the mentally ill's word in one department then why not the other? Even in your own sources it is shown that Doctors have to get a clear coherent answer from the patient. It is not just butchering people, instead if someone is in pain, they can choose relief. This should be allowed for all. When you hear the words "Mentally Ill" You make be thinking of a Madman killing others and cutting himself and banging his head against the wall level of crazy, however you must remember that mental illness can cover that, all the way down to just feeling sad and not wanting to do anything. Depression means "Feelings of severe despondency and dejection." (defined by google). If you have never felt severely dejected before then bravo to you. However many of the people in this world have felt this way, and by definition are all "Mentally Ill".

So you have yet to show any reason as to why Euthanasia is wrong. You must also show why every mentally ill person cannot make an accurate choice. Remember Mentally Ill does not mean that they are insane! Mental Illness is defined by the CDC as "Mental illnesses refer to disorders generally characterized by dysregulation of mood, thought, and/or behavior, as recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition, of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV). Mood disorders are among the most pervasive of all mental disorders and include major depression, in which the individual commonly reports feeling, for a time period of two weeks or more, sad or blue, uninterested in things previously of interest, psychomotor retardation or agitation, and increased or decreased appetite since the depressive episode ensued." Meaning it stretches from Anorexia to Depression to MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder) to other things. It is so vague that any study showing Euthanasia patients will obviously entail mentally ill patients. However there is no proof that you have given that these mentally ill are not coherent of their actions. You would have to that Euthanasia patients are allowed to have Euthanasia even after they have symptoms like being uninterested in things you just were or psychomotor retardation (Which affects the mind by slowing thoughts and ect...) or if someone is MPD or Bipolar. However your study grouped ALL mentally ill patients together. What is wrong with someone who doesnt like to eat to have Euthanasia?

In fact I would propose that the Mentally Ill should most definitely have access to Euthanasia, simple because, what if someone was depressed? What if they were depressed simply because they were always in pain, could not do anything with assistance, couldnt even go to the bathroom and much more! That would make me depressed! And henceforth Mentally Ill. Can I still choose for myself? SURE I CAN!

Really I have come out of things refute, or even point out since none of my points of been refuted and you even accepted Passive Euthanasia. So for Active Euthanasia your only debate is your moral background however there was no solid fact to prove your side. And as you stated the main mental illness was Depression, but maybe they are simply depressed for reasons I stated before, maybe being forced to stay alive is what makes them depressed? I would be, after all it is like a form of torture. Constantly being resuscitated, drugged, going through surgeries, then stuff with air tubes, would make anyone depressed. I was depressed and bored after being in the hospital only for three days. I could never imagine years there! And even when someone is depressed we know we still can make choices!

I wish Good Luck to my opponent! However I do hope to see a real reason as to why Euthanasia is something bad.
Debate Round No. 3


Okay so, I was confused about Passive Euthanasia before BUT For Passive Euthanasia I am against it as well as Active Euthanasia and all forms of Euthanasia and here is why:
It all comes down to intention. If someone is directly intending to end their own life, then I argue that is wrong, whether by natural means or Artificial means. No one can directly intend to end their own life, we don't have A so called right to kill ourselves. Just as we don't have A right to end anyone else's life, we don't have A right to take our own lives. ONLY God truly has the right to end someone's life, since He is the one who gave that very person life.

As far as this killing not being both A killing and A suicide, I disagree with you. Let me explain:
This is suicide because the individual himself is choosing to directly end his/her own life. (suicide)
This is a killing because the person who administers the lethal drugs, whether you admit to it or not, is in fact killing that person. (Even though it is that persons will to die, it is also the doctors will to kill him/her).

Hence the term often used to refer to Euthanasia ~ "Assisted Suicide"

Indeed 1 in 5 people do have A mental illness, that being said, (we should focus on this problem). They should be able to make most decisions, but ending their life is not one of them. It is far too big of A decision for (anyone) to make and I believe no one has A right to make it, BUT their mental health is playing A key role in making this decision since 93% of those who choose this are in fact mentally ill. (Let's work on trying to make mental health better!!) : )

All this being said, I go back to my original points about loving these individuals and trying to make the best of the situation and to get them ready to see their Creator in the afterlife, it is fact that there is A God, who created us and gave us rights. Ending our own lives is not one of these rights however, and no one can choose to end either their own life or the life of someone around them, just as no one chooses to come into existence. By truly loving these individuals by not killing them, we are doing more justice to them as well as ourselves. I cannot tell you why these people are suffering, but we have to trust that the Creator has A plan and it is His will to keep them alive. Seeing these people suffering is an opportunity for everyone not suffering to have love drawn out from them to reach out to these individuals and give them the best last days/months/years of their life they possibly can. Although they may be tough, the joys experienced in the afterlife will make it well worth it. and knowing that the person didn't kill themselves, which they have no right to do, all the more beautiful.

Imagine A world where instead of people being faced with the question, do you want to kill yourself? we asked these people what can we possibly do to help them through their pain and prepare them for the afterlife? A world where people were told that their life has A true value and purpose and that although we don't know why they are suffering and can't imagine what they are going through that they should trust in their Creator because He loves them more than any of us, and truly has A plan for them. A world where we actually loved God the way He deserves to be loved and didn't take rights that truly only He has and try to make them our own. That world would be truly magnificent and we'd ALL be much much happier people, it be A little taste of Heaven, right here on earth.


I see where you are coming from. However most of your debate relies on the fact God exist (Not denying this, however I try to make my arguments appeasable to all groups so they can relate.) As for no one having the right to end their life: Isnt it our life to live? And knowing everyone dies eventually it would seem more logical to be aloud to end it when you so desire, instead of living a longer more painful life for the same result. Also, just because Euthanasia would legal, does not mean everyone will under go such a process. It would only be for those who desire it. Yes we can try to make people's lives happier, but in the cases where no matter how hard we try the person is still in pain and cannot have any relief, we should give the OPTION of Euthanasia.

For Passive Euthanasia, that is no way close to suicide, it is simply deciding not to take painful treatment or any treatment. It is no different then what you are doing right now, you are slowly dying as we speak, every human being is. Passive Euthanasia allows on to reject treatments that cause pain and damage other parts of the body just to keep the whole body alive. On a biblical note, we are not suppose to damage our bodies because they are the temple of God, so adding so many drugs and surgeries to our bodies, not only defile our body, but the drugs can affect our minds too. Passive Euthanasia allows one to die in the most natural way, just die when you die.

Active Euthanasia may not be religiously correct as it is ending your life immediately and on your own terms. However there is no reason that someone who does not believe in a God would not choose this route. But either way, continously prolonging your life through drugs and surgeries to the point your lose many of your bodies functions just to live a little longer is also biblically wrong.

I will compromise the fact that Acitve Euthanasia may not be morally correct for all people, however for some it is just fine. Passive Euthanasia is morally friendly to all. No Euthanasia can be seen as either a violation of human rights as it forces people against their will to continously live through days of treatment without end. Of course not everyone will need Euthanasia but for those who do, it should be there. Atleast Passive Euthanasia, Active is as shown before, possibly immoral depending on the person. But that is exactly why the patient gets to decide what they want. Whether they want Active or Passive is up to them, but they should have the choice to escape the endless treatments.
Debate Round No. 4


It is indeed our life to live, but not our life to end. Yes, it would seem more logical if you don't believe in God. If you do believe in God however, it makes much more sense that we aren't allowed to kill ourselves because life is A gift from Him and only He has the right to take it away. Although yes the person is suffering gravely here on Earth, the pain and suffering that comes from being separated from God in the afterlife is far far worse and lasts for eternity. I don't say this to try and scare anybody, I simply say this because it's the truth. Suicide is A grave deal and being such there are grave consequences that come with it in the afterlife. If however we endured the suffering that was given to us and offered it up to God in hopes that we will be united with Him in the afterlife, not only will the pain be much less overwhelming but the eternal bliss in the afterlife incomparable to any earthly pleasure. This being said, I don't think we should offer the first choice to anybody especially because if somebody really wants their life to end and commit this grave sin they can do so already, anybody can. I can't say making suicide (euthanasia) more readily available to people would be more beneficial to anyone. Since we are all body soul unities and there is A God and an afterlife waiting for us once we die.

I understand how Passive Euthanasia can be okay given your definition. But I believe in order for Euthanasia to be "Euthanasia" there must be one thing present ~ (The intention of the individual to end their life) That is what makes Euthanasia, "Euthanasia" the individuals intentional wanting to end their life. Otherwise it is not Euthanasia, and it is just dying naturally, which there is in fact like you said, nothing wrong with that.

Under this definition, Passive Euthanasia is not morally okay to the man who believes in God and there is A more clear link between the two.
Passive ~ The intending to end your life by natural means. (i.e Starvation, dehydration)
Active ~ The intending to end your life by unnatural means (i.e lethal drugs, shotgun)

To simply refuse treatment to avoid pain and suffering and die naturally I would just call choosing to die naturally or just dying (because it's not Euthanasia at the point). There's nothing immoral about not choosing to stay alive by artificial means, or simply dying the way your Creator intended you to die. (i.e being hooked up to tubes and I.V's all the time), If someone were to choose to just go home and lay in bed surrounded by their family for their final days/months/years without treatment, there's nothing wrong with that. Since there is no intent of the person to end their own life, they are simply letting the creator take them when He takes them. & for those who would choose to do this who don't have families I would suggest that the doctors need to be there for them, to be their family, to show this love that they deserve as human beings during their final days.

In conclusion, I don't see the good that can come from having Euthanasia legalized, anybody can already end their life whenever they want, however they want. Making this choice of suicide more readily available just makes the temptation to do so more prominent, and this is A choice each individual will regret in the afterlife. Instead I propose trying to fill these peoples last days/months/years with Love and compassion and draw them closer to their Creator before they go to meet Him. Not only would we all be much happier, but the individual himself would be too.

God Loves us all more than we know and the Eternal Bliss waiting for each one who truly accepts Him into their heart and chooses His Love over worldly pleasures in inconceivable. Life is A gift from Him and only He has the right to take it away.

God Bless You, and thank you for this debate.


I see that we have come to a decision. You believe that Euthanasia should not be legal due to the moral grounds and the "intention to end their own life". However as stated before, all of Euthanasia is not dependent on wanting to die, but maybe some old person just doesnt want to have to go through yet another surgery just so that he can live a few more weeks so that he can get another surgery and so forth. It may not be that the patient just wants to end their life, but more so their medical treatment. That is what Passive Euthanasia is, and I feel we both feel this is right. Because if someone were to go home and just spend their dying moments with family without taking any treatment to keep them alive, then that would be infact Passive Euthanasia. It may not be the "Passive Euthanasia" that you have in your mind, but it still would be classifyed as such.

And Again, I am not saying that God is not a legitamate moral background to use, I believe in God aswell. However I would like to state, that not everyone does believe, hence the argument being proposed by you would not pertain to everyone. (Well it does, but some people don't believe it does.) So we are left with the standing of the "Worlds" view, and this is about whether Euthanasia should be legal or not. So to the "World" it is indeed not immoral.

As for the Reason Euthanasia should be legal: It would allow a patient to deny treatment needed to prolong their life. Meaning that situation where you are lying down and spending your final days with your family without treatment would only be legally possible if Euthanasia was legal, or Passive Euthanasia was atleast. Active Euthanasia, I do hear your side, and it comes down to each persons individual belief. I personally would not go through Active Euthanasia, but for others they may not see anything wrong with it.

So Base Line: Euthanasia isnt just about killing yourself for relief. Sure that may be apart of it, however it also allows one to choose they way they die, without having to be forced through treatments that takes away time from their family. Active Euthanasia may be immoral, but it may not to others. It depends on their belief system. Passive Euthanasia, we can already see this can entail much more than just the intent to kill yourself, but instead the intent to spend your few final moments with family rather than a surgery room. For these reason I believe Euthanasia should in fact be legal and available for usage.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
Just as you said, it is already legal to refuse treatment, however the ability to refuse treatment that is needed to keep you alive is what Passive Euthanasia grants, it actually is one of our rights to refuse treatment and Passive Euthanasia just enforces that.
Posted by StephenPeace 2 years ago
I get what you're saying about Passive Euthanasia, but that is not passive Euthanasia. It's just refusing treatment which is already legal. We cannot force someone to stay alive or take treatment, that's wrong. But we don't have to kill them either. Active Euthanasia is clearly wrong as well as Passive Euthanasia, because it all comes down to the intention of the individual. One cannot intend to end their life by any means & that is what is needed in order for Euthanasia to be called "Euthanasia". Otherwise it's not Euthanasia and there's no correlation between the two definitions of Passive and Active. It is because of this fact that Active and Passive Euthanasia can also be referred to as suicide.
No votes have been placed for this debate.