The Instigator
budding_demonologist
Con (against)
Tied
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Tied
5 Points

Euthanasia

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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,307 times Debate No: 116984
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

budding_demonologist

Con

I believe that Euthanasia should be illegal. I define Euthanasia as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The contender should be a person that supports Euthanasia.

Pro

I will be arguing that euthanasia should be legal. I do however believe that it should be a highly strict process in order for a person to be euthanased.
Debate Round No. 1
budding_demonologist

Con

Euthanasia should be illegal and more funding should be given to things such as palliative care. Palliative care is a type of care that helps people live their life as comfortably as possible with a "terminal" illness. This provides a painless a nautural death, And doesn't involve things like lethal injections. I believe that instead of Euthanasia this should be the primary focus of funding.

The premise of Euthanasia is quite primarily focused on "terminal illness" and is predicated on life expectancy. This I should offer, However, Incorrect or at the least extremely varying. People who were diagnosed to living an extra three months could live for perhaps almost three years. The technology that predicts these things are hardly ever correct. By giving someone a lethal injection because of an unknown diagnosis of perhaps a short life expectancy we are literally endangering their life. If we instead focussed on palliating them we can wait it out, And these people can have more time with their family, And we can make sure that these people's lives aren't being cut short.

Pro

As I stated in the earlier round, Euthanasia should be a highly strict process. If there is another way of saving their life such as palliative care then that option should be given.

Euthanasia should only be a last resort for those who no longer have any options left. Would you rather someone to just lay on their hospital bed for a few weeks in extreme pain, Or provide them with a lethal injection so they no longer receive that extreme pain.

Again, As I stated before, It should be a highly strict process. In order for someone to be euthanased they should have consent from all people involved. This includes any family members, Doctors, Maybe friends, And the patient themself if they are able to. This would also stop doctors from potentially murdering the patient then blame it on euthanasia.
Debate Round No. 2
budding_demonologist

Con

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand the concept of palliative care. It's actually a wonderful alternative to Euthanasia. Palliative care actually alleviates pain. If a person had excruciating pain and was lying in bed and wanted to die because of that pain, Palliative care can allieviate that pain. The die naturally, And painlessly. Palliative care doesn't save the life, Just allieviates the pain. Although if a persons life expectancy was incorrect palliating them at least gives them the time to understand the fault made by the doctor. The problem is, The majority of people who want euthanasia themselves actually don't want it because of the pain. The majority want it because of other forms of suffering, Such as being a burden or the feeling of loss.

Even because of these problems euthanasia shouldn't be allowed. Each other these forms of suffering can be allieviated or coped with in one way or another.

For pain it's palliative care.
For loss it would be psychological counselling.
For the stress of death from cancer there is psycho-oncology.
For fear of being a burden theirs a lot of education and counselling that can be provided to allieviate this dreadful feeling.

Once people recieve services like this they become much less likely to want to be euthanised. Death is not a treatment, And life is never a disease.

Sources
https://ww2. Health. Wa. Gov. Au/~/media/Files/Corporate/general%20documents/Health%20Networks/WA%20Cancer%20and%20Palliative%20Care/Cancer/Psycho-Oncology-Model-of-Care. Pdf
http://palliativecare. Org. Au/expert-opinion-the-euthanasia-debate
http://www. Abc. Net. Au/news/2017-05-26/calls-to-prioritise-palliative-care-before-passing-euthanasia/8561960
https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC4434784/

Pro

"If a person had excruciating pain and was lying in bed and wanted to die because of that pain, Palliative care can allieviate that pain. The die naturally, And painlessly. " From what I understood from that statement is it simply just reduces the amount of pain until they become deceased from their injury/illness. This means that they still are waiting on their death bed until that day comes. I don"t see a problem with fast forwarding that day through the use of euthanasia, Again with consent from all people involved.

You listed the alternatives to euthanasia,
"For pain it's palliative care.
For loss it would be psychological counselling.
For the stress of death from cancer there is psycho-oncology.
For fear of being a burden theirs a lot of education and counselling that can be provided to allieviate this dreadful feeling. "

You also said in your earlier statement, "I define Euthanasia as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. "

So what in the list shown above that can help a person in an irreversible coma? Now obviously a person in a coma can not consent to euthanasia and it is possible for the patient to come out of said coma, But at least this provides the family with a last resort to finally put the patient at peace.

We should always provide alternatives for anyone in hospital. I do not think that euthanasia is necessarily a good thing. Again, Euthanasia should only be a last resort. Making it illegal only slims the patients and family members options if any alternatives were unable to work.

Thank you for a great debate and good luck in the voting process.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
WW2GuyWhoLikesWW2
No one in the USA is just euthanasing old people because they're a "burden" We have more than enough commodities to have someone whos old have free housing and an income aka social security, Section 8 housing, Government-issued caretakers, And welfare. With that said, If someone wants to die. Let them, No need to play god and just say "No, You're not human enough to make your own choices old man, You're too stupid to know that your back pain from working 40 years isnt enough of a reason to kill yourself. " and then guess what you get. People who end it the worst ways, Not peaceful ways. You catch my drift.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
WW2GuyWhoLikesWW2
Why is it your right to choose what someone does and what someone doesn't? No matter which old person you talk to, As they get into their 80s they start to get problems. It's usually the only reason people die when they're old. It's because they get sick somehow. From heart attacks to influenza people that old die. And anyone who doesn't feel like they want to die doesn't have to kill themselves when they get to that age. But if someone wants to just end it because every day is pain for them. Let them do it.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
budding_demonologist
That's assuming that every elder is like that. By encouraging them to, Well, Die. . . It's just denying the carer the right to show compassion. In palliative care the majority of "pain" can be managed. One of the only things that can't be managed is suicidality. Although just because someone is suicidal does not mean you should "help them" commit suicide. When you get older you will only want to die if the people around you are not compassionate, And don't take the time to tell them how much their loved and cared for. We should encourage THAT instead of Euthanasing people who feel like a burden.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
WW2GuyWhoLikesWW2
As you get older, You start to want to die because everything in life is harder the older you get. When you're sitting there, Needing to be carried around by your caretaker. Not able to go to the bathroom by yourself anymore. You have no energy and every day is draining on you more and more. It's better to have 30 years of happy times than 60 years of misery.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Let's ban youth in Asia :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
RMTheSupreme
budding_demonologistAnonymousTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources is non-competed by Pro (I am reporting the vote that gave sources to Pro). Con's sources were actually 'reliable' in themselves relative to overall ranking of sources with only abc being an overly biased source but even then they don't state actual lies at all and are known to be right on the facts they dish out. I would honestly say this: If Con had not pointed out the following I would have voted Pro: "Once people recieve services like this they become much less likely to want to be euthanised. Death is not a treatment, And life is never a disease." Since Con says this, it completely re-angles his debate as one directly attacking the basis of Euthanasia instead of purely being one saying we don't need Euthanasia. Pro's defence that euthanasia should be a strictly regulated last resort is not a counter to the angle that death is how we define failing to save a life and that's the motive of any medical procedure. Pro should have brought in that suffering matters more than li
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
budding_demonologistAnonymousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Eh, I think both sides make good arguments, but I don't think either side fully addresses the should or should not well enough. Pro might have made a slightly better argument, but to me it seems to be in a bit to stealing the clothes of Cons side. Pro doesn't seem to think free euthanasia for everyone, but argues it should be regulated and given to those with the belief and reason they need it. I think if Con had made the argument euthanasia should be discouraged but still allowed in extreme cases, he would have helped his argument some rather than going for all or nothing.
Vote Placed by ThoughtsandThoughts 3 years ago
ThoughtsandThoughts
budding_demonologistAnonymousTied
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's argument seemed centered on the fact that since there is an alternative to euthanasia, it should not be legal. Patients often have options at every stage of an illness/injury, why should the presence of certain options make another option illegal?

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