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

should euthanasia be legalised?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,505 times Debate No: 35932
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)


Euthanasia means mercy killing. This is for those who are suffering a disease which are incurable for example HIV Aids. The people suffering from this disease can be killed through certain methods by doctors because it is better to die than to suffer for whole your life. I know it is sin to kill a person but for his/her sake it is not a sin but a good thing for his/her. so it should be legalised as fast possible so that many people are benefited.


(Only 1000? Darned!)
While my opponent has presented the singular case of 'suffering from disease', legalising euthanasia has more consequences that I am sure my opponent has not considered.

The purpose of legalizing euthanasia is to implement mercy killing, but have you ever thought about what would happen when euthanasia is actually legalized?
By legalizing euthanasia, you've given the OK for people to kill other people, for people to commit suicide. How do you know a person is suffering? Fact is : you don't . Now you and I both know of cases of incurable disease. If a person suffering from an incurable disease elects to be euthanised, I am sure we both agree that it would be justified. However, incurable diseases aren't the only agents that cause suffering!!

The main problem : euthanisation can be implemented by someone on someone else. There are then an incredibly diverse number of scenarios in which euthanisation can be abused as a way to legally murder people.

1000 characters.. REALLY??
Debate Round No. 1


euthanasia Can quickly and humanely end a patient"s suffering, allowing them to die with dignity.
Can help to shorten the grief and suffering of the patient"s loved ones.
Everyone has the right to decide how they should die.
Death is a private matter, and if you are not hurting anyone else, the state should not interfere.
Most people would have their pets put down if they were suffering " this would be regarded as kindness. Why can"t the same kindness be given to humans?
Illness can take away autonomy (the ability to make choices) and dignity, leaving you with no quality of life; euthanasia allows you to take back control in deciding to die
Keeping people alive costs a lot of money, which could be used to save other people's lives


How do you measure a person's suffering? How do you know someone isn't just going through a phase and will be normal again?
Let's say, for example, we had a coma patient. Now comas can last from hours, days, and years to a lifetime. The fact is, you dont know how long the coma is going to last.
Let's say a patient has been comatose for 6 months, and would have woken up the next month. The patient's family decides: 'let's euthanize him since he is 'suffering'. How do you know the coma patient is suffering? By having him euthanized, this patient, who would have been back to 'life' and fully recovered, has now been killed. I argue to pro, while optimal cases of euthanization are great for justifying it, we must consider that legalizing euthanization allows for a multitude of loopholes through which you can legally kill another person. The example I've provided is just one of many.
My opponent must address the following:
1. legal loopholes (of which there are many)
2. by what standard do we euthanize?
Debate Round No. 2

Pro forfeited this round.


Keep this thing illegal! Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themoderate 5 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 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited