The Instigator
lsdantzer333
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Thoht
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points

Should Assisted Suicide be Legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 1/15/2019 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,232 times Debate No: 119899
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

lsdantzer333

Con

Assisted suicide should be illegal as people shouldn't be helped to die. If they are in pain or suffering they can be treated for it. They have pain killers and other drugs that can keep them from suffering. I also believe that doctors shouldn't be allowed to kill their patients. Doctors or physicians should be helping and preserving lives instead of taking them.
Thoht

Pro

1. Not all pain and suffering can be stopped by painkillers. The pain can be too extreme, Requiring overdosing on painkillers to stop which will probably harm or kill them, Or the suffering can be too great.

2. If I am going to gradually lose my mind, I would rather die in a dignified manner than allow myself to deteriorate. I would rather be remembered with grace and dignity intact. This is not suicidal. People should have the right to choose how they live, AND how they die.

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 1
lsdantzer333

Con

Assisted suicide is no act of mercy as it is taking a life instead of attempting to help the person. The whole history of medicine has been one of improved healing or, In terminal cases, Reduced suffering; euthanasia, Which devalues life to the point of liquidation, Is the precise opposite of good and responsible medical care. Some of the people who choose to have their lives ended by assisted suicide have mental illnesses and not severe medical conditions. If it's requestes it will be granted.
Thoht

Pro

1. It is an act of mercy. The are conditions for which there is no cure and no alleviation. You have ignored my point on this count. If someone could live for a year with endless suffering and torment or be allowed to die the merciful choice is clear.

2. You state "some" people may have mental illnesses. Those who verifiably do will be appointed a caretaker, They will not be able to make this choice themselves. There are plenty who are of sound mind, And their wishes should be respected.
Debate Round No. 2
lsdantzer333

Con

Allowing patients, By law, To choose death is a slippery slope; it will lead to abuse of the system and legalized murder. A patient"s pain and suffering can be relieved through palliative care. Doctor prescribed death involves more than the patient. It necessitates a host of participants, Including a doctor, A pharmacist and the state. It's a public act that requires medicine, Law and society approve a lethal prescription that crosses the line between caring and killing. It is legal murder.
Thoht

Pro

Saying a system may be abused is not an argument against the system. It just means it will have to be regulated carefully. Legalized murder is an oxymoron. Murder is illegal killing. We justify killing in hundreds of ways. This will just be one additional way.

There are patients for which there is no relief. You haven't even tried to deny this.

We justify killing any number of ways.

Allowing people whose existence is torture or irreversible degeneration to choose how they die is moral.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MicheleM 3 years ago
MicheleM
I like your ideas on this subject Thoht. I pretty much agree with everything you said on this subject. I am picking this subject to write my next essay for English 1. You made some very real arguments that is appealing to me, Thank you for the insight. I am hopeful for this essay to bring me an "A. "
Also, I have never heard of the book Leaning mentioned, Therefore, I do not know if it is pro or con, But I will check it out. If anyone has any further input on this matter, My ears are open.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Wow andymcstab, Really vote bombing here. Giving sources conduct and spelling to him? Even if you agree with him, That's ridiculous.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
Cool debate! Very brief and not too much reading. :P
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
This topic reminds me of the book On a Pale Horse by Piers Anthony.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
If you're curious I believe I can dig up a documentary on this matter that is quite convincing.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Legal with regulation is "grey" as far as laws go.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
I suppose, But the harshness of nature and having to take care of myself by myself might get rid of me before I'm too far gone. That would be a bit suicidal I suppose. Honestly I'd rather just avoid most questions about what people can and can't do. Far too often feels ambiguous and gray. Laws aren't really gray so much I think. Have a tendency more towards black and white. Makes them frustrating to deal with at times. People and situations having minutely different values and circumstance so to speak.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
If my mind was being destroyed slowly I wouldn't be 'me' anymore. I'd want to choose to die before I deteriorated to a shadow of my former self.

There's nothing suicidal about this inclination. To say so is to say that I, As of this moment, Am mentally ill and suicidal for believing there is a situation in which I would want to die that doesn't currently exist.

If I can get you to agree to one situation in which you would choose death rather than live, Assisted suicide should be a no brainer to be legal. Regulation is fine. No one wants mentally ill people to be allowed to kill themselves under normal circumstances, But there are certainly times where death is preferable to life. Medical science is in its infancy. There is much we cannot cure.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Makes it easier to read. Though I suppose it could be annoying if one is not allowed to say all they feel they should be allowed to say. Personally I've always thought it could be nice if I was ever developing Alzheimer's or some other type of debilitating disease I'd like to go camping alone for the last years/months of my life. Although could end up dying in a particularly confusing or painful manner that way I suppose.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Just a heads up to all readers, There is a 500 character limit on this. I will be as concise as I can.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
lsdantzer333ThohtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con commited slippery slope fallacy which does not make the actual act bad it will just make something bad happened which is not an argument against assissted suicide. Pro also was more specific with his points. The creator of the debate only had the word count at 500 which is not enough for either side to make a compelling argument. At best you could possibly put in 1 point, evidence and explanation which is only sums up to 1 argument.
Vote Placed by andymcstab 3 years ago
andymcstab
lsdantzer333ThohtTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made much better points
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
lsdantzer333ThohtTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't feel that Con's arguments quite hold up, though there is a type of sense in them. Mercy killing is widely considered to exist in popular culture. Con argument also fails to adequately account for people of sane mind or ones who painkillers are not effective on. Pro addressed some of these flaws in Cons argument as well as pointing out that we justify killing in a number of ways. Much of the reasoning by the two participants was more implied than stated I think, but still there. Likely the character limit simply prevented them from building stronger arguments. Pro was able to introduce gray area in Cons argument, that still 'could be argued against using slippery slope and other arguments, but not enough reasoning was given by Con. Again, character limit. Anyway, I thought Pro made better arguments, but I'm sticking with me tied in agree, because I like 20 foot poles. Though admittedly if I ever came across it in life I would have to make a decision on way or the other or other.

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