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

Should Euthanasia be legalized?

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: 12/15/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 665 times Debate No: 83957
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Hi, look forward to reading Cons argument if anyone accepts. :-)

Why Euthanasia should be legalised

Euthanasia is the act of painlessly ending a patient's life if they are suffering from a painful terminal disease or are in an irreversible coma. I believe wholeheartedly that people who are in such a dire state should not have to endure the painful, agonizing, unbearable pain any longer. Do you not agree? If you do not, I implore you, why are you for condemning your fellow humans to what they see as a living hell? Why should they be restrained from finally reaching peace?

I am aware of the negative stigma attached to Euthanasia; people associate it as immoral, unethical, wrong! I am here today to reveal the truth. Euthanasia is the exact opposite, actually, it is often referred to as mercy killing. There are a range of reasons why Euthanasia should be legal, but I believe the main one is that every human being should have the right to decide their own destiny. Every human being should be able to make that decision.

Another aspect to take into consideration is the effect this will have on family members and friends. A lot of people think Euthanasia would have a terrible affect on relatives, but I ask you, would the affect be any worse than watching your family members health degenerate over a length of time? Would you not feel better knowing they were resting and free from their agony? Also, a surprising number of people have to look after a family member who is in one of my aforementioned conditions and no longer wishes to live, sometimes throwing away their ambitions and dreams in the process. Unable to work, having to see their relative suffer each day. Do you not think it would be better if Euthanasia was legal so their relative has the option to end their life?

Many people are against Euthanasia because they feel it devalues human life but I believe the opposite. In my opinion, it values human life as it is allowing the person to die with dignity, not waste away on a hospital bed until the end draws near. Now, does that really feel like what you would call a valuable life?

Also, another reason people don't want to legalise euthanasia is because of religion. For example, in Christianity most of the statements are against euthanasia, an example being " Be not overly wicked, neither be a fool. Why should you die before your time?" Ecclesiastes7:17. However, there are also several statements for euthanasia, one saying that Christians should respect every other human being. Personally, I think that shows a very important lesson, and not only for Christians. I do not think religion should be a reason against legalising euthanasia.

Euthanasia could also have some economic benefits, for example, when someone chooses to end their life medical funding would be freed up, meaning there would be more money to help other people who have the desire to live. Although, The government would have to be careful , so euthanasia doesn't turn into a way of containing health care costs, and make sure this does not influence peoples decisions.

Now, You may be deliberating, "yes, it all sounds good in theory, but would it actually work?". Here is your answer. Euthanasia is legal in many countries, some examples being Belgium and Luxemburg. It is also legal in 4 American states: Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont. These places are all successful Countries/States which have let several people rest in peace.

To conclude, I believe wholeheartedly that people who are in such a dire state should not have to endure the painful, agonizing, unbearable pain any longer? I believe they should be allowed to choose their own destiny!

Common Rebuttals and answers:

Q1 - Who decides - I mean, it's obvious if the patient is able to communicate but what if they are a irreversible coma, like I said at the start?

Then, unless the patient has specified before entering the coma I think it would have to fall to their closest family member to make a decision for what they would want. Please note this is a very difficult matter and I would be happy with another sensible solution, so long as it is benefiting the person who wishes to be euthanized.

Q2 - What if a family member tells the doctor to euthanize the patient in order to collect their life insurance when the patient is in a irreversible coma and the patient wouldn't of wanted that?

In this scenario, you have to understand that the only way to take out life insurance is for yourself, so the patient would have took it out before he entered the coma. Surely if the patient had took out life insurance, he would want his family to received the benefit if something happened to him. Not to mention that there is very little chance of someone waking up from a irreversible coma is very low, they are practically dead.

Also, the insurance company would pay out as soon as the irreversible coma was diagnosed so there would be no point taking them off support for that reason.

Q3 - How do we know that Euthanasia is the right course of action - what is the patient has a terminal illness but also temporary depression, which is clouding their judgement?

In this situation, I think we should make the time between the request and the actual euthanasia a decent time apart. For example, I think Washington has a very good system, the patient has to make 2 oral requests (15 days apart) and 1 written request. Also, you have to go see 2 doctors and a physiatrist (to check your state of mind). This will help to ensure it is definitely what you want.






I don't see why you are debating this doctors already do that except they call it "Pulling The Plug" so tell me how it is not already legal
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Peepette// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con is flippant and does not offer any rebuttal toward Pros statements nor makes any new arguments against the topic

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter is correct in their assessment of the debate, that does not justify the 7 point allocation to Pro. The voter still has to explain why Pro is deserving of conduct, S&G and sources, and provide some reason why Pro's arguments were compelling.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by retroz 2 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is the only one who offered a true argument, and Con did not refute Pro's arguments... Nor did Con provide any sources. Thus, Pro wins this round