Question: Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: I accept!Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide should be legal in extreme cases where the patient is willing and suffering from excruciating pain for an extended amount of time with no certain end in site.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: I will argue that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized. My main arguments will be that it is the individual's, not the state's, right to decide whether one should die or not and that it is inhuman to prolong the suffering of those that are fatally and painfully ill by preventing them from making the choice to die quickly. I present the model. Euthanasia clinics where the patients can make the unpressured choice whether to die. The patients would be subjected to proffesional phsycological tests to determine their mental state and would be killed by an injection of pentobarbitol which is a tried and tested drug for human euthanasia. I eagerly await a challenger.

Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: In light of Jack Kevorkian speaking at my school tonight, I offer up this debate to anyone who wishes to take it on. Bottom line, physician-assisted suicide should be legal. It is absurd that anyone or any group should have the authority to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own life with regard to this issue. I believe it to be the height of arrogance that someone can feel as though they can enforce their morality on someone suffering from a terminal disease. The overly moralistic person is not feeling the pain. They will not be affected in any way whether the dying person takes their own life or if they needlessly prolong their suffering. Yet, they insist on using the government to enforce their morality on people they don't even know. A dying person, suffering from cancer or some other horrific illness that promises nothing but a slow, painful death, should be able to die on their own terms, with dignity. I eagerly await someone to accept my open challenge.

Title: physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: I negate the resolution, resolved: physician assisted suicide should be legalized. I will let my opponent, whoever that may be, go first.

Title: resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: I negate the resolution resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. This is true because if it was legal in all states a lot of people would be dead just because they don't want to live.

Title: resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: I affirm the resolution resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. This is true because when a person is in excruciating plain, on their death bed, should be able to be put out of their misery, and to be with Jesus.

Title: Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Content: Should Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide be legalized for the terminally ill that have no chance of recovering? Please answer yes or no.

Title: physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: I affirm: Physician assisted suicide should be legalized. Physician assisted suicide: The killing of a person by a physician, assuming consent of both physician and person, and proof that the person is mentally sound. Contention 1: Freedom of Choice People have a freedom of choice. Yes, this freedom has limits when others are in harm's way. But suicide is internal and personal. It affects others far less than it affects oneself. So in the end, it is a personal choice. Contention 2: An End To Suffering When someone is suffering, she may want it to just be over. She has no reason to continue living, so why should she? Requiring someone to continue living when she does not want to is terribly unjust: it is an intentional affliction of suffering unto someone. This is needless, and is why physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. Contention 3: Reduction of Traditional Suicide Those who are suicidal will not stop themselves from committing suicide simply because it is illegal. Personally-executed suicides are dangerous and have the potential to be very harmful due to the carelessness of the suicidal. But if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, then it will greatly reduce the risk of suicides gone awry. Subsequently, the government and health institutions will be able to document the suicides. Keeping accurate records of who has committed suicide greatly increases convenience for the hospitals and insurance companies.

Title: Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Content: Physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, should be made legal in the United States because it many cases in is in the patient's best interest. Many painful, terminal conditions exist that lead to long-term suffering and severely effect the quality of life. Life is sacred, yes, but when that life is blind, deaf, paralyzed, unable to swallow, and seizing uncontrollably then there is nothing "sacred" about it. Physician assisted suicide would be handled in a similar way to a DNR legally speaking, with the patient signing a paper stating that in the even of a certain illness or medical state they would be okay with having their life ending painlessly, gently, and professionally by a trusted doctor.

Title: Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized Content: Full Resolution: Physician-Assisted Suicide (Hereafter reffered to as PAS) under lawful regulations, should be universally legalized.Definition:Physician-Assisted Suicide: The practice of a liscensed physician willingly perscribing a lethal drug at a patient's request for said patient to ingest or otherwise take, effectively ending his/her own life.Rules:There will be 4 rounds:First: Acceptance/any clarifications or additional definitions.Second: Opening arguments (with a rebuttal from Con)Third: More arguments/rebuttals from both sides.Fourth: No more arguments. Closing statements only (With the EXCEPTION of Pro being able to provide a rebuttal for Con's Round 3 argument)To restate what I said, if the Contender has any questions, or wants to add any definitions, you can do that in your acceptance. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to this debate!

Title: Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice Content: As the title of the debate would imply, the purpose of this argument is to discuss whether or not euthanasia should be legal in medical practices. I am against this (attacking it), and thus I would expect my opponent to argue in favor of it. The first round of five is solely for acceptance, and each person will have three whole days to respond before forfeiture of the round. May the smartest man win!

Title: The legalization and morality of euthanasia Content: Though I am not a doctor, nor any type of physician. It is my belief that euthanasia should become a legal right to all who meet the criteria. Euthanasia should be granted to those who are either terminally ill and/or, nearing the end of their lives with an unbearable amount of pain. In other words, use common sense, leave your religious beliefs at the door (as I have done so for this debate) and keep ignorance to a minimum. Do not simply leave your argument to the substandard of "Suicide is just plain wrong!", or to the famous "Killing people is wrong!" argument. Euthanasia is a necessary and proper process and is in desperate need of legalization. There are many who are left to suffer until their tragic day of death arrives to them. It should not be this way for those people. Euthanasia would most definitely end the suffering of thousands who must deal with their own deaths, and unbearable pain.

Title: You Choose the Resolution! Content: It is a great pleasure to be debating with you once again, ThinkBig. *I'll be debating as Pro for "That physician-assisted suicide (PAS or euthanasia) should be legalized".* Full Resolution (Focus is the U.S.)Resolved: PAS must be legalized in all 50 states of the U.S. Preface / Understanding the debateBefore we begin, I shall present my policies and framework for this debate. It is also necessary for me to address that the BoP will be shared in this debate. I'll also dedicate this clause explaining how to fulfill the BoP: Con's burden is to present the disadvantages of euthanasia / PAS and how these disadvantages harm the U.S. The premise of this debate is centered on utility (to not be confused with the theory of Utilitarianism), which I'll define soon. To be explicit, this means that the burden of each debater is to provide evidence substantiating that PAS is either useful to the U.S., meaning that it benefits the people of the nation (Pro's objective) or alternatively, it harms the people of the U.S. and is overall damaging / and or dangerous to the nation (Con's objective).FrameworkMy framework is pretty simple, my arguments will focus on autonomy (the right to death in this case), the alleviation of pain of terminally ill patients and the problems with current laws. I will as well focus on the Hippocratic Oath and what part it plays in PAS. Succinctly, if a patient is under excruciating pain caused by his or her sickness, he / or she should have the right to decide if they want to be permanently relieved of that pain through the means of pain-free lethal medication (assisted suicide). DefinitionsLegalize: "to make legal; authorize." Utility: “the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial.”Autonomy: "Independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual."Physician-assisted suicide: "suicide with help from another person (such as a doctor) to end suffering from severe physical illness"(1). Without further ado, let the debate begin! C1: Autonomy and Alleviation of PainOne of the points that I will touch on in this debate will be a person's right to have control of their own life / self-determination. Today, more and more countries are recognizing a patient's right to die. Countries like Canada, Germany, Netherlands, and Belguim have already passed legislations concerning this issue. However, the U.S. is stubborn, with only 20 states that have (only recently) started taking a call for legislative action to pass a bill of this sort, and only 4 states allow it (3). The reason the court disagrees is because they have failed to realize that just like human life, the self-determination of a person is valuable as well. The reason this has often been neglected is simply because "ending" / or relieving someone of their painstaking illness is considered morally diminishing; however, by this criteria, prolonging the pain of that certain individual to the point where he / or she succumbs from it isn't morally unacceptable or diminishing at all. The Economist conducted a survey in 15 countries where they asked people if it is a morally justifiable act for doctors to assist in their terminally ill patients' suicide by prescribing them lethal medication. Based on the results, Russia and Poland were against, but America and Western Europe were strongly in favor. Oregon, a state that has condoned PAS with their Death and Dignity Act have prescribed lethal medication to 1,327 people so far, and less than 50% of those individuals used it to alleviate their death. Undeniably, it is not the Netherlands where assisted suicide is accountable for 3% of deaths of the total population, and that's explainable, patients there are heavily relied upon and trust their medical professionals (2). Surely, my opponent may argue that we don't need PAS because the advancement of medical technologies will help to extend our lives and palliate the illness we may be succumbing to. However, here's the conflict. Due to the fact that many jurisdictions are discarding PAS, they're actually doing their citizens a disservice by prolonging the individual's pain and suffering (3). Australian gynaecologist Dr. Rosemary Jones says, "We stand for a group of doctors distressed about the small number of patients, who, at the point of death, get no relief from palliative care" and further, "We thoroughly endorse the practice of palliative care for 95 [percent] of all palliative care [patients] and understand that for five per cent, there are persistent problems beyond relief provided for by palliative care" (4). Succinctly, palliative care isn't always the answer. The attitude U.S. should adopt towards PAS is that it's the final stage of proper care and prolongation of life, and life cannot exist without death. C2: Current law does more damageA 57 year old British national by the name of Paul Lamb who became paralyzed after a near fatal car accident has currently spent 23 years of his life lying in bed immobilized. Because of this, he filed for assisted suicide, which was immediately discarded, despite that he described his life as a "living hell"; specifically, he is taking heavy dosages of drugs to alleviate his excruciating spinal pain caused by the accident. The court also said that any medical professional who would dare help him commit suicide will be penalized (5). According to Lamb, the reason his case was discarded is because policymakers simply don't want the UK to be another European country that permits PAS. In fact, he said that the authority is "scared to death". He further commented, "Politicians are scared to death. It is a case of `Oh no, we can't do that - it's too risky'. If there was a politician with the guts to take it on it would be alright but I don't think they have got it in them" (6). Because of the court's rejection, Lamb took further legal action: "I am doing this for myself as and when I need it. I'm doing it for thousands of other people living what can only be described as a hell. Many of them have been in touch with me begging me to continue this fight. The more it goes on the stronger I am getting" (6). His daily routine includes taking analgesic drugs like morphine to mitigate his pain. Lamb is not alone on this, a (now deceased) man who had suffered from(6). As for the US, a popular case would be Britanny Maynard's case, a woman who was diagnosed with brain cancer. Maynard knew that her odds were slim; hence, she decided to relocate to Oregon where PAS was legal. Although she was a supporter of euthanasia, her actions show us that self-determination is one of the most important aspects of our life (7). Although there are numerous cases of this sort, I believe the concept behind several PAS-related cases is simple and clear. People want to end their suffering. Surely, the medication and technology that soothes the pain does exist, but the issue doesn't change. The person is not cured, and frankly, sometimes there isn't a cure, which is the case for many terminally ill patients. The sufferer will still be in bed, taking drugs and feeling the pain with or without medicine, which only temporarily soothes the pain. Sometimes the best way to help someone is permanently relieving them of that pain; it is better to die painlessly rather than to experience suffering for the remaining years of your life, and waiting until you succumb from your disability / or sickness. C3: The Hippocratic Oath isn't violatedI believe one of the main factors to acknowledge when instigating PAS is the role of the Hippocratic Oath. Now, in Hippocrates' era, there was no ban placed on assisted-suicide in Greece. Nevertheless, many medical professionals still argue that based on the Hippocratic Oath--to not give their patients lethal drugs--PSA is a violation. Interestingly enough, in ancient Greece, doctors had permission to give their patients lethal medicine if asked by their patients. Aside from that, should we even rely on the Hippocratic Oath anymore? Despite it being a sacred, ancient document, the oath has been revised several times. For instance, verses about women in the medical field and a verse about "not breaking the skin" have been removed (8). Doesn't this just show us the faultiness of the document? But to remain on-point, let's adhere to the oath being a sacred document that every practicing physician must follow. Based on the oath, doctors must (obviously) care for their patients. Discernibly, the patient's suffering must also be the doctor's top priority. However, when he / or she is constantly suffering and there's no cure for the suffering / or the chances of curing the illness is slim; then, isn't the doctor obliged to end his / her suffering. Because by the criteria, if the patient is suffering, the doctor's duty to care for the patient isn't being fulfilled (8).According to the modernized version of the oath, the right to death is being emphasized: "Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God" (9). Evidently, the revised, international document proves that it's not against assisted-suicide (by the context). As stated by the document, the "power to take a life" is one of the most profound burdens a physician could carry.ConclusionBy my contentions, I've fulfilled my BoP by showing that without the choice of assisted suicide, a person's autonomy, self-determination, and right to choose what is best for him or her is violated. Since I'm running out of characters, I'll reserve the conclusion for the final round.Back to you, Con! =Sources=[1]:http://bit.ly...[2]:http://econ.st...;[3]:http://bit.ly...;[4]:http://bit.ly...;[5]:http://bit.ly...;[6]:http://ind.pn...;[7]:http://bit.ly...;[8]:http://bit.ly...;[9]:http://bit.ly...;

Title: Assisted Suicide. Content: Ok so I believe that assisted suicide should be legal. I am open to debate.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: I argue that Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized. As a Christian, I do believe that Euthanasia is wrong, but I still believe that it should be legal.Definitions: Euthanasia - The painless killing of a patient (at their request) suffering from an incurable and painful disease.Rules for this debate:1. No forfeits2. BoP shared3. No trolling or disrespect4. Con must start his or her opening argument in first round.5. To maintain the same number of rebuttals for both parties, Con must agree not to make any arguments in the final round.6. Pro will provide a closing statement in the final round and not present any new arguments.I look forward for an exciting debate.

Title: Pick your own debate - 1E Content: Alright, lets get started! Topic 1- Physician assisted suicide should be legalized in the United States: I am PRO Topic 2- Water borading is a justified method of interrogation for terrorists: I am PRO Topic 3- The Bible supports Young Earth Creationism (YEC): I am PRO Good luck.

Title: Euthansia should be legal Content: Euthanasia should be legal. It should be legal because people have the right to choose whether they want to live or die. According to the article Top Ten Resons Euthanasia Should be Legal Eveywhere written by Dave Anderson three years ago states, "Because we can determine the course of our lives by our own will, we have the right to live our lives and determine our own course".

Title: Euthanasia Content: 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.

Title: You Choose the Resolution! Content: As a pre-med student, this is one issue that I care very deeply about. I am strongly opposed to any form of PAS or euthanasia. I’m looking forward to an excellent exchange. Observations This debate centers around PAS/Euthanasia. We need to understand that the two are not mutually exclusive and they are not synonyms for each other. Although the end goal is the same (death), the procedure is much different. Euthanasia is usually defined as an intentional act undertaken by the physician that intentionally ends the life of a person at his/her request. PAS, on the other hand, a person self-administers a lethal substance provided by the physician (1). Although these differences appear to be moot and non-consequential, they both have a differing set of ethical questions. For purposes of this particular debate, however, it appears that both of them are being treated as synonyms. Therefore, pro will have to show that both PAS and euthanasia should be legalized. I will, however, attempt to negate the resolution by showing that both PAS and euthanasia should not be legalized under any circumstances. Framework My framework will be centered around medical ethics and the harms that legalizing PAS or euthanasia will cause to the medical profession. Legalizing PAS or euthanasia would greatly harm the medical profession and violates the rights and dignity of patients. Corruption of Medicine Legalized PAS would forever change the culture and purpose in which medicine is practiced. Legalization of PAS would corrupt medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used for killing. Furthermore, it distorts the physician-patient relationship, and could eventually lead to forced euthanasia. Finally, the risks of misdiagnosis among terminally ill patients are far too great to allow a physician to determine who should live and who should die. The bedrock to medical ethics is the Hippocratic Oath (more on this in the next round) which states: “I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anyone who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. ” (2) This is the foundation of medicine. As doctors, we have the responsibility to treat our patients and stay on the side of life. Legalizing PAS would greatly undermine the first roll that a doctor has. Misdiagnosis PAS is seen as a merciful way out for the terminally ill. Under current law in Oregon and other places, the terminally ill can request PAS if they have been given less than 6 months to live. Unfortunately, misdiagnosis among the terminally ill is not uncommon. According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, medical errors, when added up, may be the third leading cause of death (3). Joseph Perkins asks, “How many of those patients, depressed by the prospect of imminent death, might ask a doctor to prescribe them lethal medication so that they can end their lives, as euthanasia proponents euphemistically put it, ‘on their own terms’? ” (4)Distorting the Physician-Patient Relationship As noted by Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, PhD. : “PAS changes the culture in which medicine is practiced. It corrupts the profession of medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used as techniques for killing. By the same token, PAS threatens to fundamentally distort the doctor–patient relationship because it reduces patients’ trust of doctors and doctors’ undivided commitment to the life and health of their patients. ” (5) The Duty to Die When does the right to die become the duty to die? Although the laws put safeguards in place to prevent forced PAS, no guarantee is made that it won’t occur and the safeguards are woefully inefficient. Because it is cheaper to kill a patient rather than treat one, insurance companies will be incentivized to cover medication of PAS rather than keep them covered long-term. This happened in 2008 to Barbra Wagner as CNN reports: “In 2008, came the story that Barbara Wagner, a Springfield, Oregon, woman diagnosed with lung cancer and prescribed a chemotherapy drug by her personal physician, had reportedly received a letter from the Oregon Health Plan stating that her chemotherapy treatment would not be covered. She said she was told that instead, they would pay for, among other things, her assisted suicide. ” (7) The slippery slope is real and quite alarming. J. Pereria et al. noted that In Belgium, non-voluntary euthanasia (that is, without explicit consent of the patient) is 3 times higher than the Netherlands and accounts for more than 1% of all euthanasia. Their study concluded: “In 30 years, the Netherlands has moved from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill, to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill; from euthanasia for physical illness, to euthanasia for mental illness; from euthanasia for mental illness, to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering—and now to euthanasia simply if a person is over the age of 70 and “tired of living. ” Dutch euthanasia protocols have also moved from conscious patients providing explicit consent, to unconscious patients unable to provide consent. Denying euthanasia or pas in the Netherlands is now considered a form of discrimination against people with chronic illness, whether the illness be physical or psychological, because those people will be forced to “suffer” longer than those who are terminally ill. Non-voluntary euthanasia is now being justified by appealing to the social duty of citizens and the ethical pillar of beneficence. ” (7) This is certainly undesirable and has no place in medicine. Conclusion The great harm that it would cause to the medical profession cannot be overstated. Doctors must remain on the side of life and actively work to preserve life, not take it away. Moreover, the risk of misdiagnosis is far too great to risk terminating life prematurely. Instead of encouraging death, we must work to improve end-of-life care. The resolution is soundly negated. 1. . http://www.medscape.com...2. . http://guides.library.jhu.edu...3. . http://qualitysafety.bmj.com...4. . http://www.ocregister.com...5. . http://www.heritage.org...6. . http://www.cnn.com...7. Pereira, J. “Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and Controls. ” Current Oncology 18.2 (2011): e38–e45. Print.

Title: Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America Content: I accept, and await Pro's arguments. I will contend that euthanasia should not be legal, as it leads to ethical issues and denying this does not breach any rights.

Title: Brittany Maynard's Decision to Die is Cowardly Content: Being able to choose our time of death is not our choice and is not a right which we have. All humans are of great and equal worth and should be respected by others and protected by society. Euthanasia/physician assisted suicide directly undermines our society's commitment to care for the dying. Instead of turning away from natural death and suffering we must learn to embrace them both and not resort to an unnatural and immoral means of ending a life!

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: Hey lannan, Thank you for extending this debate opportunity to me. I look forward to an intense clash of minds in which all who observe can enjoy. XI: Intro and Definition I would like to begin this debate by making the clear observation that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) is NOT the same as euthanasia. In my own words PAS is self-administered death while euthanasia is the taking of another's life by the actual doctor, with of without their consent. Basically in euthanasia the doctor pulls the trigger (with or without permission by the patient) while in PAS the doctor simply supplies the gun, very different. These quotes will demonstrate what I am saying: "Physician-Assisted Suicide is where patients with a terminal diagnosis (life-limiting disease) formally request a prescription for a fatal dose of a drug which they can administer to themselves at a time of their choosing......It is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying, to treat an unbearable situation, and is legal in two states in the U.S.A. (Oregon [Death with Dignity Act 1994] and Washington [2009]), and in Europe in The Netherlands." "Euthanasia is when a physician or other healthcare provider does something, such as administering a known lethal dose of a drug, to deliberately kill a patient, with or without the patient’s consent. It is not legal anywhere in the U.S.A." ~http://comfortcarechoices.com... "Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy killing")."~Wiki: Assisted Suicide XII: PAS is Safe and is fairly common in other countries Many people have misconceptions about physician assisted suicide. PAS is a very safe practice, Countries which allow PAS include: Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Canada. In the U.S. these states allow PAS currently: Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Montana and Vermont. ~Wiki: Assisted Suicide. Another fear many people have about PAS is that it is unsafe and leads to family members forcing others to engage in PAS for personal gain such as inheritance. This would be a major concern if it were not for the reasonability of legislation and the opposition to PAS. What I mean by that is, the fact opposition brings attention to the possibility of abuse, special measures are taken to implement especially safe laws. Here is a sample of the legal process to apply and receive PAS: "Several safeguards in Death with Dignity laws ensure all patients are protected, and if they wish to use the law, they're in full control of the process. These safeguards and the request process ensure there's no chance patients are coerced to hasten their deaths. The terminally ill patient: verbally requests the medication from the physician twice; each request is separated by 15 days. make a written request to the attending physician; the request is witnessed by two individuals who are not primary care givers or family members. can rescind the verbal and written requests at any time. must be able to self-administer and ingest the prescribed medication. The law further requires... The attending physician must be licensed in the same state as the patient. The physician's diagnosis must include a terminal illness, with six months or less to live. The diagnosis must be certified by a consulting physician, who must also certify that the patient is mentally competent to make and communicate health care decisions. If either physician determines that the patient's judgment is impaired, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination. The attending physician must inform the patient of alternatives, including palliative care, hospice and pain management options. The attending physician must request that the patient notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. Use of the law cannot affect the status of a patient's health or life insurance policies. The states' departments of health enforce compliance with the law. Compliance requires physicians to report all prescriptions to the state. Physicians and patients who comply with the law are protected from criminal prosecution. Physicians and health care systems are not obligated to participate in the Death with Dignity laws." ~ See more at: http://www.deathwithdignity.org... XIII: The Moral Reason Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal Beyond any facts I have presented I must state the moral reason for which PAS should be allowed, ultimately it comes down to the fact that people who suffer never-endingly, deserve the right to control their own life and as has been said, "Die with Dignity". People who oppose PAS often make arguments which are quite contradictory to the way in which we are supposed to treat others in the U.S.. One I often hear is, 'we cannot play god', to which I must respond, "Which one?". Not everyone believes in the same god and some lack such a concept. by rejecting the idea of PAS using this logic, are you not imposing your religious beliefs on others and is this not against the way in which we are supposed to operate in the U.S. concerning religion? I find it wrong that people who have never experienced excruciating and continual pain, force their beliefs on those who on a daily basis do. It is very egotistical to believe that you know more than an 'expert' in pain, in essence. So these people who have never experienced such pain prevent laws from being passed which would free people from the prison of their body. A person who is burning in a fire will experience pain so vast that it is incomprehensible, and it should be absolutely morally irreprehensible to allow the continuation of such pain; what deprives one of their right to pursue happiness than something like that? Please let me be clear, if such pain occurs for just a moment, then of course they should not be allowed to end their life. And if this pain is psychological and caused by depression, then of course they should not be permitted to end their life in this name, however it is when this suffering is permanent that we must disallow its continuation. Doing otherwise should be considered a crime, not vice vera. Thanks you for reading and considering, I end my opening statement.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: I am going to take the Pro side on this and argue that Euthanasia SHOULD be legalized. I look forward to your argument.

Title: Euthanasia Content: For those who do not know, Euthanasia is also recognised as assisted suicide or medical suicide. It is the act of ending a life, If the person requests it, To relieve pain and suffering. I am for euthanasia. I believe that people should have the right to decide when their own life should end. It should only be done by medical professionals in a hospital setting, It goes without saying. Why should people have to live in pain? That is no life. Whose family wants to watch them suffer? You should be allowed peace. As long as you are mentally assessed and proven to be mentally stable and capable, You should be allowed to make this decision.

Title: Euthanasia Content: I see my opponent doesn't cut the new fish any slack so if he wants fact sources real hard core proof here it goes first off im going to brake down each topic so were gonna start off with right to die "The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. " Patient Suffering at End-of-Life "Activists often claim that laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are government mandated suffering. But this claim would be similar to saying that laws against selling contaminated food are government mandated starvation. Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer. " Slippery Slope to Legalized Murder "In a society as obsessed with the costs of health care and the principle of utility, the dangers of the slippery slope. .. are far from fantasy. .. Assisted suicide is a half-way house, a stop on the way to other forms of direct euthanasia, for example, for incompetent patients by advance directive or suicide in the elderly. So, too, is voluntary euthanasia a half-way house to involuntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia. If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent? Why need we ask for consent? Hippocratic Oath and Prohibition of Killing "The prohibition against killing patients. .. stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as medicine's primary taboo: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect'. .. In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can make killing him right. For the physician, at least, human life in living bodies commands respect and reverence--by its very nature. As its respectability does not depend upon human agreement or patient consent, revocation of one's consent to live does not deprive one's living body of respectability. The deepest ethical principle restraining the physician's power is not the autonomy or freedom of the patient; neither is it his own compassion or good intention. Rather, it is the dignity and mysterious power of human life itself, and therefore, also what the Oath calls the purity and holiness of life and art to which he has sworn devotion. " Government Involvement in End-of-Life Decisions "Cases like Schiavo's touch on basic constitutional rights, such as the right to live and the right to due process, and consequently there could very well be a legitimate role for the federal government to play. There's a precedent--as a result of the highly publicized deaths of infants with disabilities in the 1980s, the federal government enacted 'Baby Doe Legislation,' which would withhold federal funds from hospitals that withhold lifesaving treatment from newborns based on the expectation of disability. The medical community has to have restrictions on what it may do to people with disabilities - we've already seen what some members of that community are willing to do when no restrictions are in place. " Palliative (End-of-Life) Care "Studies show that hospice-style palliative care 'is virtually unknown in the Netherlands [where euthanasia is legal]. ' There are very few hospice facilities, very little in the way of organized hospice activity, and few specialists in palliative care, although some efforts are now under way to try and jump-start the hospice movement in that country. .. The widespread availability of euthanasia in the Netherlands may be another reason for the stunted growth of the Dutch hospice movement. As one Dutch doctor is reported to have said, 'Why should I worry about palliation when I have euthanasia? '" Healthcare Spending Implications "Savings to governments could become a consideration. Drugs for assisted suicide cost about $35 to $45, making them far less expensive than providing medical care. This could fill the void from cutbacks for treatment and care with the 'treatment' of death. " Social Groups at Risk of Abuse "It must be recognized that assisted suicide and euthanasia will be practiced through the prism of social inequality and prejudice that characterizes the delivery of services in all segments of society, including health care. Those who will be most vulnerable to abuse, error, or indifference are the poor, minorities, and those who are least educated and least empowered. This risk does not reflect a judgment that physicians are more prejudiced or influenced by race and class than the rest of society - only that they are not exempt from the prejudices manifest in other areas of our collective life. While our society aspires to eradicate discrimination and the most punishing effects of poverty in employment practices, housing, education, and law enforcement, we consistently fall short of our goals. The costs of this failure with assisted suicide and euthanasia would be extreme. Nor is there any reason to believe that the practices, whatever safeguards are erected, will be unaffected by the broader social and medical context in which they will be operating. This assumption is naive and unsupportable. " Religious Concerns "As Catholic leaders and moral teachers, we believe that life is the most basic gift of a loving God- a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion. Our tradition, declaring a moral obligation to care for our own life and health and to seek such care from others, recognizes that we are not morally obligated to use all available medical procedures in every set of circumstances. But that tradition clearly and strongly affirms that as a responsible steward of life one must never directly intend to cause one's own death, or the death of an innocent victim, by action or omission. .. We call on Catholics, and on all persons of good will, to reject proposals to legalize euthanasia. " Living Wills "Not only are we awash in evidence that the prerequisites for a successful living wills policy are unachievable, but there is direct evidence that living wills regularly fail to have their intended effect. .. When we reviewed the five conditions for a successful program of living wills, we encountered evidence that not one condition has been achieved or, we think, can be. First, despite the millions of dollars lavished on propaganda, most people do not have living wills. .. Second, people who sign living wills have generally not thought through its instructions in a way we should want for life-and-death decisions. .. Third, drafters of living wills have failed to offer people the means to articulate their preferences accurately. .. Fourth, living wills too often do not reach the people actually making decisions for incompetent patients. .. Fifth, living wills seem not to increase the accuracy with which surrogates identify patients' preferences. " Roughly speaking, there are two major views about euthanasia. The traditional view holds that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, but that given certain circumstances it is permissible to withhold or withdraw treatment and allow a patient to die. A more recent, radical view is embraced by groups such as the Hemlock Society and the Society for the Right to Die. It denies that there is a morally significant distinction between passive and active euthanasia allows the former and forbids the latter. Accordingly, this view argues that mercy killing, assisted suicide, and the like are permissible. The issues surrounding the euthanasia debate are tips of a much larger iceberg. www. afterall. net www. google.

Title: Euthanasia should be legal Content: I think that Euthanasia should be legal for a couple of reasons. By the way by legalising euthanasia i mean legalising voluntary euthanasia 1. The patients are going to die soon( very painful deaths in some cases ) and they are suffering from a terminal illness which will cause them lots of pain until they die and there isn't a cure, so why live waiting to die a painful death when you can die straightaway with no pain at all. 2. People have the right to die and in some cases such as euthanasia people don't have the right to die because they need a doctor's help. It is still the patient's choice on whether to have euthanasia it is just that the patient need the doctor's help to kill him/her self. 3. Putting a person in pain that is incurable and watching them die a painful death is evil which is why euthanasia should be legal, euthanasia doesn't even hurt so why let a patient die a painful death when they want to do it by euthanasia and not by incurable pain.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized but with requirements Content: The debate was originally intended to be about whether or not it should legal at all but no I do not forfeit. I do not believe just anyone should be able to go to a physician and end their life. Many teens choose suicide because they think their problems are just too great and that their life is never going to improve but those of us that make it past our teen years look back and realize how trivial our problems really were. Of course if someone truly feels they have nothing left to live for they don't really need a physicians help to end it do they. Not so much an elder stuck in a nursing home bed 24/7 whom euthanasia is generally pertaining to or for any terminally sick person. We can't stop the vast majority of people but that doesn't mean we should just say o well and help them end it.

Title: Assisted Suicide Content: Just a quick note to the readers and voters that this debate is for the DDO Olympics hosted by bsh1. Full ResolutionResolved: That physician assisted suicide should be legalized. Good luck and may the best arguments win.

Title: Doctor assisted suicide Content: I would like to begin by saying thank you for this debate. I look forward to it and I strongly urge you to listen to my argument. However, I also urge you to reconsider your proposition. I thoroughly believe that doctor assisted suicide (I will refer to it as euthanasia as it is a more appropriate term) should be a viable option for terminally ill patients and patients who would be in crippling pain for the foreseeable future; in fact, it is an option already. However, doctors should not be responsible for assisting in this suicide. It poses many problems both morally and legally. My first contention involves the morals of the situation. You were correct on saying doctors have nice things such as money, prestige, and social status. However, you were not correct in claiming they were “privileges.” If we take a look into the lives of doctor’s, we will notice how difficult it is. The average physician spends 8 years in very detailed study and 11-16 years total of medical training (1). At that point, the large salaries, prestige, and social recognition is earned. It is not a privilege. Physicians spend a great deal of time, money, and energy to develop the skills they need to save lives. Their rewards are certainly not privileges. Furthermore, your argument states that "if doctors have this power, they should have to deal with the consequential responsibility of such power--that is, their decisions should not hinge on their little moral codes; whatever they think is right or wrong should be a non-issue." Besides the fact that doctors have earned this power, these are not “little moral codes” either. In every culture to ever exist, human life has been the #1 priority. Many people are not alright with ending the lives of others, regardless of how or why they are doing it. A recent study found that 69% of physicians object to euthanasia, 18% to permanent sedation, and 5% to PAS (2). This is mainly due to religious and philosophical influences. This is made obvious by the same study. 84% of highly religious physicians are opposed to euthanasia (3). The majority of doctors, and people, are against killing people altogether. These are not "little moral codes." Euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering" by Merriam Webster (4). Killing someone is something that an overwhelming majority of people feel is wrong. We cannot ask doctors to kill people. It is their job to heal, cure, and prevent disease and injury of their patients, not to end their patients lives. Aside from morals, the legality of euthanasia could prove problematic. There is an oath that every doctor takes called the Hippocratic oath. This oaths specifically reads "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect (5)." This means that a doctor may never give a patient a substance that will harm them, nor shall they suggest it. Oaths are legally binding, so doctors are obligated to not provide euthanasia. However, I see that you believe the Hippocratic Oath is "irrelevant and should be changed." I will take the time to remind you exactly what the oath does. It protects the patient, not the doctor. It prevents doctors from committing malpractice and experimentation on patients, it prevents them from having sexual relationships with patients and their families, and more. The Hippocratic Oath has saved so many lives and brought a form of perfection to medicine. It is entirely relevant and always will be. To think it needs changed ignores what doctors had done before the oath. They did experiments on people, harming them and disfiguring them, they accepted bribes to hurt people, and worse. The oath has been one of the most important events in medical history and it has allowed medicine to flourish. We cannot unsubscribe from it. Also, we must consider how this oath keeps people at the doctors. Hippocratic's Oath eeps trust in the medical system. Because of its importance and sheer practicality for protecting patients it keeps people comfortable seeing a physician. Without the Hippocratic Oath, there is little gauruntee that doctors wont commit malpractice. It should not be a responsibilty for doctors to provide this service. I urge you to reconsider your view point. Euthanasia should be an option for the terminally ill and those who are in permanent pain, but it should NOT be a responsibility for doctors to assist in the death of their patients. It runs contrary to the sheer principle of medicine and being a doctor. Therefore, the only viable option is to decide that it is not the responsibilty of doctors to assist in suicide or preform euthanasia. Thank you. Please vote in the negation of this proposal. CITATIONS http://www.learnhowtobecome.org... https://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.med.wisc.edu....PDF http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.medicinenet.com... http://www.amednews.com...

Title: Euthanasia :) Content: Just your standard Euthanasia debate :) Promt: Euthanasia should be legal in the US.

Title: Assisted Suicide Content: Thank you for your concession. I'm still going to present my opening arguments anyway, mostly to save them for another debate. ==Opening Arguments== I would like to thank my opponent for providing his opening arguments. As a pre-med student, this is one issue that I care very deeply about. I am strongly opposed to any form of PAS or euthanasia. I’m looking forward to an excellent exchange. Observations This debate centers around PAS/Euthanasia. We need to understand that the two are not mutually exclusive and they are not synonyms for each other. Although the end goal is the same (death), the procedure is much different. Euthanasia is usually defined as an intentional act undertaken by the physician that intentionally ends the life of a person at his/her request. PAS, on the other hand, a person self-administers a lethal substance provided by the physician (1). Although these differences appear to be moot and non-consequential, they both have a differing set of ethical questions. For purposes of this particular debate, however, it appears that both of them are being treated as synonyms. Therefore, pro will have to show that both PAS and euthanasia should be legalized. I will, however, attempt to negate the resolution by showing that both PAS and euthanasia should not be legalized under any circumstances. Framework My framework will be centered around medical ethics and the harms that legalizing PAS or euthanasia will cause to the medical profession. Legalizing PAS or euthanasia would greatly harm the medical profession and violates the rights and dignity of patients. Corruption of Medicine Legalized PAS would forever change the culture and purpose in which medicine is practiced. Legalization of PAS would corrupt medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used for killing. Furthermore, it distorts the physician-patient relationship, and could eventually lead to forced euthanasia. Finally, the risks of misdiagnosis among terminally ill patients are far too great to allow a physician to determine who should live and who should die.The bedrock to medical ethics is the Hippocratic Oath (more on this in the next round) which states: “I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anyone who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” (2) This is the foundation of medicine. As doctors, we have the responsibility to treat our patients and stay on the side of life. Legalizing PAS would greatly undermine the first roll that a doctor has. Misdiagnosis PAS is seen as a merciful way out for the terminally ill. Under current law in Oregon and other places, the terminally ill can request PAS if they have been given less than 6 months to live. Unfortunately, misdiagnosis among the terminally ill is not uncommon. According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, medical errors, when added up, may be the third leading cause of death (3). Joseph Perkins asks, “How many of those patients, depressed by the prospect of imminent death, might ask a doctor to prescribe them lethal medication so that they can end their lives, as euthanasia proponents euphemistically put it, ‘on their own terms’?” (4)Distorting the Physician-Patient Relationship As noted by Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, PhD.: “PAS changes the culture in which medicine is practiced. It corrupts the profession of medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used as techniques for killing. By the same token, PAS threatens to fundamentally distort the doctor–patient relationship because it reduces patients’ trust of doctors and doctors’ undivided commitment to the life and health of their patients.” (5) The Duty to Die When does the right to die become the duty to die? Although the laws put safeguards in place to prevent forced PAS, no guarantee is made that it won’t occur and the safeguards are woefully inefficient. Because it is cheaper to kill a patient rather than treat one, insurance companies will be incentivized to cover medication of PAS rather than keep them covered long-term. This happened in 2008 to Barbra Wagner as CNN reports: “In 2008, came the story that Barbara Wagner, a Springfield, Oregon, woman diagnosed with lung cancer and prescribed a chemotherapy drug by her personal physician, had reportedly received a letter from the Oregon Health Plan stating that her chemotherapy treatment would not be covered. She said she was told that instead, they would pay for, among other things, her assisted suicide.” (7) The slippery slope is real and quite alarming. J. Pereria et al. noted that In Belgium, non-voluntary euthanasia (that is, without explicit consent of the patient) is 3 times higher than the Netherlands and accounts for more than 1% of all euthanasia. Their study concluded: “In 30 years, the Netherlands has moved from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill, to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill; from euthanasia for physical illness, to euthanasia for mental illness; from euthanasia for mental illness, to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering—and now to euthanasia simply if a person is over the age of 70 and “tired of living.” Dutch euthanasia protocols have also moved from conscious patients providing explicit consent, to unconscious patients unable to provide consent. Denying euthanasia or pas in the Netherlands is now considered a form of discrimination against people with chronic illness, whether the illness be physical or psychological, because those people will be forced to “suffer” longer than those who are terminally ill. Non-voluntary euthanasia is now being justified by appealing to the social duty of citizens and the ethical pillar of beneficence.” (7) This is certainly undesirable and has no place in medicine. Conclusion The great harm that it would cause to the medical profession cannot be overstated. Doctors must remain on the side of life and actively work to preserve life, not take it away. Moreover, the risk of misdiagnosis is far too great to risk terminating life prematurely. Instead of encouraging death, we must work to improve end-of-life care. The resolution is soundly negated. 1. http://www.medscape.com......2. http://guides.library.jhu.edu......3. http://qualitysafety.bmj.com......4. http://www.ocregister.com......5. http://www.heritage.org......6. http://www.cnn.com......7. Pereira, J. “Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and Controls.” Current Oncology 18.2 (2011): e38–e45. Print.

Title: You Choose the Resolution! Content: Thank you for your contentions, ThinkBig. I would also like to address that I'm fully aware of the differences between euthanasia and PAS, but seeing that you have superior knowledge over me on this topic, I am honored to be debating with an opponent like you. I wish you success in your studies.Due to my consecutive grammar errors, I tend to make when writing longer debates, this round will be kept succinct. It is also important to address that the opponent may not extend or defend any arguments in this round as it is reserved only for the rebuttals. (Since the debate rules weren't updated, no new argument must be added in this round).Without further ado, I shall begin my refutationsRebuttals:R1: Law and Individual"...medical ethics and the harms that legalizing PAS or euthanasia will cause to the medical profession."As my opponent has mentioned in his framework, his argument will be built upon the premise of medicals ethics, and that a violation of those medical ethics will occur should PAS be deemed legal; however, that's the first issue in my opponent's contentions. Just like the court always rules against the favor of assisted suicide; it's not what matters to the individual, but rather what is written in the handbook. By doing so, the court is suppressing that person's individual liberty and his/her autonomy as an individual. Derek Humphry, the ex-president of World Federation of Right to Die Societies asserts, "this manifesto [assisted suicide] proclaims that every competent adult has the incontestable right to humankind’s ultimate civil and personal liberty -- the right to die in a manner and at a time of their own choosing" (1). I believe that both, my opponent and I can concur that liberty and self-determination are one of the most crucial aspects of a person's life and decision-making. Consequently, though, when a court discords assisted suicide for an individual who requests for it; it is a violation of that person's autonomy and right for him/or her to take destiny in his/her own hands (govern own life). This is the inexorable injustice and unfairness my opponent's arguments don't touch on. This can sidetrack me into arguing about legal and ethical principles, but let's save that for another debate. R2: Person's dignity"violates the rights and dignity of patients".Though my opponent only addresses the rights of the individual, little is said about dignity. Regardless, I'll still address dignity. I'll argue the former, disallowing the right for assisted suicide for an individual takes away that individual's dignity. We don't know what somebody truly desires without them giving us the answer. If a person requests to be euthanized, and that person's request is denied, then he / or she will be forced to submit to their sickness until they eventually succumb to it. Meaning, that this person is condemned to die in an unwanted manner; ergo, this strips him/her of his/her dignity and self-esteem. However, it would've have been vice versa, only if euthanasia was legally enforced (which it is not).R3: Physician-Patient Relationship"Furthermore, it distorts the physician-patient relationship, and could eventually lead to forced euthanasia."Firstly, my opponent doesn't provide any evidence or explanations of how it could lead to "forced" euthanasia. Secondly, to address the physician-patient relationship issue, the Hippocratic oath is what constitutes the relationship; it's the bedrock of medical ethics and the relationship (as my opponent and I agree). I'll use an example from my previous arguments to negate his contention. The Hippocratic oath is a (roughly) 2000-year-old document that has been edited numerous times to satisfy the contemporary society's current status quo. The modernized version of the oath acknowledges that a doctor carries a profound responsibility to end somebody's life: "But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God" (2). Speculatively, this can be interpreted as that the doctor could fail to preserve his patient's life, or he has the right to permanently palliate his patients suffering by assisted suicide. We should also take into consideration that during Hippocrates' era, assisted suicide was allowed.Now, it's still a very controversial and moot statement to make. But let's also take into consideration that the older version of the oath prohibits the physician to use a knife on the patient (3), does this mean we should still abide this guideline? Of course not. Incontestably, times are changing. Meaning, that we cannot rely on an ancient document to continue governing our medical industry (this is the reason it was edited in the first place). R4: The Barbara Wagner CaseA large controversy and uproar had been sparked in Oregon because Barabara Wanger "had reportedly received from the Oregon Health Plan stating that her chemotherapy treatment would not be covered. She said she was told that instead, they would pay for, among other things, her assisted suicide". I've emphasized "had reportedly" for a reason. Based on my (somewhat) heavy and extensive research on this case, this allegation seems like another form of money-hungry, typical con-artistry because of the lack of evidence: there is no actual, photographic evidence of this letter. Plus, not a single lawsuit has been filed by her against the insurance company.R5: Duty to Die Fallacy"Because it is cheaper to kill a patient rather than treat one, insurance companies will be incentivized to cover medication of PAS rather than keep them covered long-term." My opponent and I could both concede on the colossal expenses of health care. However, according to economic evaluations, PAS doesn't reduce the substantial spending. Martin Levin, JD, MPH, MTS, who is against PAS's legalization, argues that killing Americans to keep costs down is absurd: "What is absolutely incredible to me is that someone would honestly argue that we should consider the cost savings to America by killing, or assisting in the suicide, of human beings ... even if we were to consider these figures, the savings only total approximately $10,000 per assisted suicide victim. The total savings of approximately $627 million is less than one percent of the total United States health care expenditures" (4). He also asserts that not many Americans qualify for PAS, the difference is 1/3 of 1% (4).I have also noticed a study pertaining to Dutch PAS protocols. Firstly, this is impractical only if my opponent can somehow substantiate that based on this study, U.S. will take the same turn if it were to legalize PAS in all 50 states (remembering that our debate is focusing on U.S. laws). Because of this, I will not respond to the study. R6: Misdiagnosis:"According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, medical errors, when added up, may be the third leading cause of death (3)."This argument is erroneous because it doesn't list any examples/instances about the misdiagnosed, terminally ill patients who died as a result of PAS allowed by their diagnoses. The study that my opponent quotes surely is thought-provoking, but then again, it only leaves to speculate due to the absence of concrete evidence. Therefore, it remains a challenge for my opponent to find an instance where a misdiagnosed patient died as a result of PAS, allowed by the diagnosis. Notwithstanding the claims, let's take a look at how many people die as a result of PAS. According to the data, in 2015, out of 1,545 patients in Oregon who were prescribed lethal medication, 991 of them decided to take their own lives. In 2014, Washington state had 712 deaths as a result of lethal medication. And in Vermont, only 24 (5). Evidently, not that many die as a result of PAS. Though misdiagnosis is a prevalent issue that must be contained under all costs, the data has no concrete correlation with the deaths of misdiagnosed PAS patients. Sources:1.http://bit.ly... 2.http://bit.ly...;3.http://bit.ly...;4.http://bit.ly...;5.http://cnn.it...;

Title: Euthenasia Content: I accept :) I will be arguing that euthanasia should not be made legal. As you are supportive of euthanasia, I will let you make the first argument.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalised. Content: Euthanasia should not be legalised.It is more like making disabled feel unequal then armed.Also, giving more powers in the hands of doctors is unsafe.They may use it whichever way.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: I will support my contention, that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized, with the following arguments: 1. The right to die and self determination 2. Wasted health resources and public funds 3. Prohibition targets innocents There are other arguments, but I believe the following arguments should satisfy the reader to conclude that Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legal. 1. The right to die and self determination I would like to highlight articles 5 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1]: Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression Bob Dent, who was euthanatized, said it best: "What right has anyone […] to demand that I must behave according to their rules? " That's the point I want to make. While I strongly don't agree that someone should give up hope and be euthanatized, but this is neither my decision nor yours. We must respect people's opinions, no matter how much we disagree with them. People who are terminally ill suffer significantly. If they voluntarily, repeatedly and freely make the decision to end their lives, we have no right to deny them that right. Doing so will deny them their right for self-determination and will subject them to pain against their will. 2. Wasted health resources and public funds Euthanasia would free up doctors, nurses and hospital beds. These scarce resources would then be deployed to assist those who are in need, reduce waiting times and improve the overall quality of care [3]. To spend these resources to forcefully preserve the lives of patients against their will is ridiculous. 3. Prohibition targets innocents In Ireland, Marie Fleming was denied the right to end her life. Her partner was told that he could face up to 14 years in prison if he helped her die! [4] A Pennsylvania woman was charged with murder for assisting her 93 year old father commit suicide [5]. Rebuttal a. Equality issues? My opponent stated that "limiting euthanasia to the terminally ill sends a message that certain people are expendable and others aren't". This argument is similar to saying that designating parking spots for the disabled sends a message that disabled people are inferior. But this is simply not true… disabled people are the ones who requested to be accommodated; they in fact feel insulted when their voices are not heard. The same goes with the terminally ill requesting the right to euthanasia. They argue that the value of human life is not determined by the government, but by the individuals themselves. They can judge for themselves if their life is expendable or not, not the government. My opponent also claimed that "legalizing euthanasia suggests that human life only has instrumental value". He argued "Why treat people with equal respect if we don't really believe that they're equal? " I disagree. I argue that my opponent is confusing the objective human worth and subjective self worth. Article 1 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that we must view all humans as equals in dignity and rights [1]. This is the objective view of human worth. A terminally ill person is just as valuable as a healthy person. However, we have no jurisdiction to define the subjective self worth (or instrumental value) of any individual… that would be determined by the individuals themselves. b. Unintended consequences? My opponent also warned of the risk of the slippery slope. He wondered if Euthanasia was legalized: "what's to stop non-consensual euthanasia"? While this is a very common challenge to legalization of euthanasia, it's actually a red herring! Every argument has its own merits and reasons. Non-voluntary euthanasia (or non-consensual euthanasia) may or may not have its own merits and should be discussed separately. My opponent was also concerned that people may be euthanatized incorrectly by a doctor. However, he hasn't provided any evidence for this possibility. Under the Dutch law, the following conditions must be fulfilled [6]: - The patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement - The patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time - The request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs - The patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options - There must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above I argue that such measures are very responsible and would significantly reduce any potential doctor error. c. Corruption? My opponent stated that Euthanasia "invalidates the Hippocratic Oath. " I challenge my opponent to state which parts of the oath euthanasia allegedly invalidates. There are several parts of the oath that actually supports euthanasia [7]: "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required. " "I will remember that […] that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug" "…But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. " I argue that my opponent's claim actually supports my contention, not weaken it! My opponent also argued that euthanasia transforms the role of the doctor to "priests, granting absolution for a patient's suicide" and that "state sanctifies the intentional killing of another human being" There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is that my opponent suggested that the intentional killing is always evil or wrong. But this is not true when it comes to euthanasia. I've already demonstrated that the voluntary euthanasia of terminally ill patients is not evil, but merciful. The second problem is that doctors perform euthanasia with full conscience and out of profound interest in helping their patients. Doctor's don't grant any absolution or lack their off. They simply help their patients end their suffering. My opponent also suggested that "euthanasia could disincentivize the research and development of better medical care". I challenge my opponent to provide any evidence for this claim. The number of patients who request euthanasia is very limited, and there's no reason to believe that this claim is true. d. Suicide and Unnecessary? Let me start by agreeing with my opponent on the legalization of assisted suicide. (In my opening argument I stated Euthanasia (or assisted suicide)). I do agree that's assisted suicide is a better option for those who are able to receive lethal pills and administer it themselves. However, how about those who don't have the means to commit suicide? Tony Nicklinson was denied his bid to die [4]. He was suffering from "locked in" syndrome and was living "a living nightmare". It was so horrific that he decided to starve himself to death and died after a week without food. Also Kelly Taylor suffered so much pain that she starved herself for 19 days. She realized that her suicide route was even more harmful that she gave it up and suffered in agony again. My opponent mentioned that patients have the right to refuse treatment. In light of the two examples before, and the amount of suffering it takes until someone finally dies, you couldn't possibly agree that this is a viable option! I also strongly disagree with my opponent's idea to make deadly pills available to the public. What would prevent someone from purchasing them to murder others? It has to be monitored to avoid abuse. Also, its ease of access could have people kill themselves because they were having a bad day! Euthanasia and assisted suicide is only provided to patients who frequently and persistently request it. Thank you. [1] . http://www.un.org... [2] . http://www.ethicalrights.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://listverse.com... [5] . http://www.cnn.com... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia should be legal in the United States. However, only when voluntary. A person has the right to life, and therefore they also have the right to die. Why should they suffer if they don't have to or don't want to any longer? Nobody should have to suffer for a longer period of time if they don't want to. Being terminally ill and fighting for so long is suffering enough. They must grow tired of it and if there is a way to end the suffering peacefully and safely then people should at least have the choice to choose assisted suicide.

Title: Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2) Content: Full Resolution: Physician-Assisted-Suicide should be universally legalized in the United States.DefinitionPhysician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS): The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. [1][1] http://www.medterms.com..."Rules"First round is for acceptance only.Last round is for rebuttals/cloing statements only.Obvious other things (no ad hom, etc)If you have any questions or clarifications or whatever, please say so in the comments. Thanks!

Title: Physician Assisted Death Content: As someone in favor of physician assisted suicide, physician assisted death, ie murder, is a horrible idea. Murder is illegal in the U.S, and therefor physician assisted death would be unlawful do to the broad nature of the topic at hand.[1] [1]http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Title: Assisted suicide should not be legalized in the United States Content: Thank you Pro, I shall make a case as to why assisted-suicide should be implemented legally for society today (within the context of the United States)We Already Allow Suicides:First of all, if a person is actually determined to commit a suicide and carries his/her actions out successfully, it does not make sense to have this action as illegal. We cannot imprison a body as a result, nor can we fault the family of the person committing suicide, ergo in this context of legality it simply makes more sense to legalize assisted-suicide by default. If the legal system is a set of state-enforced mechanisms to deter undesirable behaviours and to offer incentives to desirable behaviours, then we can see there is no reason to keep assisted suicides illegal, we cannot force that person to no longer want to kill themselves should they be successful. Furthermore, the every day person can get away with this with the current medical loop-hole within the law, and doctors ethics. Lets take a more realistic hypothetical situation shall we? Say your life is only held onto by "life support", this machine is breathing for you, feeding you, and is the only thing actually keeping you alive due to a critical injury. You are in fact allowed to refuse it, causing your own death. In other words, by complicity the doctors allowing you to refuse treatment, they are de facto assisting your suicide. Now one might say the doctors ought to force the patient, however this would void power of attorney, and ergo would be illegal in such an event. Besides who would the doctor be to try and determine who me may and may not save in the face of refusing a patients wishes? In fact, the following states already have legalized assisted suicides: Montana, Oregon, and Washington (State)[http://www.cbc.ca...] This Furthers the Liberty of the Individual: While we already acknowledge that you do not have a choice in being born, you do have choices within the free-market to be who you want to be. For instance, you could be gay or straight, you could run or walk, you can voluntarily talk to someone, or refuse to do so. Why not enable the right to choose if you live or die? So long as you are not determining this upon someone else and only yourself, why should one not have the right to choose to die? I say again: you never were consulted as to if you wanted to be born or not, why not allow this option within today's society coupled with the above contention that we already allow for suicides? This Does Not Always Mean A Rise in Private Firms: My opponent draws a hypothetical of a private firm slaughtering people in a capitalist hell-hole bent on killing innocents. First, with the new Obama-care being implemented the US will effectively have a semi-private health care system. In other words individual mandate (the state insurance) is a state corporation competing with private insurance firms. That's about it, the rest of the hospitals are paid for by the state, and the system was already more socialist than it was capitalist, because doctors save lives regardless of injury and money. It may drive you bankrupt, but you can always get treatment should you seek it. Also, doctors cannot kill simply anyone they would like in an assisted suicide legalized state. In fact my opponent commits a bare assertion fallacy here: doctors still must adhere to medical ethics, and could lose their jobs, along with future potential jobs as doctors with their licenses removed. In fact, in medical ethics, the person being killed must have informed consent! Otherwise not only is the operation not allowed to be carried out, the doctor faces stiff punishments, and the person in question who deceptively killed the "granny" would be charged with murder. So this person would not get any money to kill someone, this does not cause a rise in private firms, nor would it cause a rise in pseudo-suicides. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]The Physical Can do His Duty to His Patients:In medical ethics, the doctor must do his best within the limitations of the law to relieve the pain of the patient. Along with the fact that he must preserve the dignity of said patient. If a patient has a terminal illness, then in the name of relieving pain, that doctor can and should put to death his patient to lessen the suffering. (Again on the condition of informed consent)Less Costly to the System Anyways, So You Wouldn't Have to Worry About Private Firms:I shall quote a fellow DDO member on here in another debate, he put it elegantly. "Whatever way one looks at it, dying costs money. In fact, a person in Miami will be spending around $23,000 on medical bills in the last six months of his/her life [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...]This cost is for dying without the use of PAS. However, a person, using PAS, would only spend approximately $10,000 (in 1995 dollars) on medical bills [http://www.nejm.org...]. I’d like you to think about that. If a person chooses to have a PAS, this would mean that his/her surviving relatives would have about $13,000 that they didn’t before to put toward a funeral (a traditional funeral ranges from $7,000 to over $10,000 [http://www.funeralswithlove.com...]), or other debts that may need to be paid. Let’s say that this patient who wishes to have a PAS, may have un-wealthy relatives, or he/she may be un-wealthy. Not only is he/she suffering, but he/she is also paying quite a bit of medical bills to be kept alive, especially when he/she doesn’t wish to be in the first place. So, given the opportunity to choose, not only would he/she be relieving his/herself of suffering, but also saving money for his/her relatives or beneficiaries as well." ~ DetectableNinjaFinally, All Countries Named Have Universal Care When Giving Suicides:Legally, the only person capable of administering said assistance to suicide would be the doctors, that is it, not some private firm. Even then, doctors make lots of money, why would someone work for a suicide only business when they have their own private practices (notwithstanding doctors working in hospitals)? My opponents hypothetical rests on an appeal to emotion, fear mongering of the capitalist system, and finally, an absurd notion that the US's system is capitalist (when after Obamacare it clearly is not with individual mandate, nor has it ever been which was a supporting argument for individual mandate!). Thank you!Summary:(1) Already allow it, cannot charge a body(2) Furthers liberty(3) Does not mean a rise in private firms(4) Doctor does his duty more(5) Save on costs Therefore, we can conclude that the US ought to legalize doctor assisted suicides (a.k.a PAS) Over to my opponent!

Title: Euthanasia should become Legalized in the US Content: Euthanasia is defined as physical assisted suicide for patients who are in extreme physical pain (judged by the patient). I am willing to debate on the moral stand point as well the legal part of the debate. Questions are encouraged . Good luck to my opponent.

Title: Should Physician assisted suicide be legal Content: Physician Assisted Suicide or PAS is defined by Merriam Webster as "suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information" Two states, Oregon and Washington have already made this legal. I believe that a terminally ill patient who has undergone psychiatric evaluation and been deemed sane and competent to make their own decisions should legally be able to do so. I would like to debate someone who has an opposing opinion.

Title: Assisted Suicide shoud be legal in Virginia Content: I have the same objects to Physician assisted suicide as I do with Euthanasia, they are it is immoral, they are subjective, there is no right to die, it will lead down a slippery slope to other things, it really isn't voluntary, it is against any every major religion, and it degrades human life. First lets address my opponents points. "patients will be able to die with dignity, free from pain and a possible long, suffering death. " You mentioned Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. In Oregon you qualify for PAS if "An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner" [1] It makes no mention of pain. Further, "It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available. " [2] Since Pain can be controlled it should not be used as a reason to kill yourself. "physicians should assume their roles in relieving the sick from suffering" When people receive their medical degree they have to take something called the Hippocratic oath. In the Hippocratic oath it prohibits directly or indirectly killing human beings. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. [3] By violating this oath how can we know the doctor is acting in the patient's interest? A physician's role is to kill illnesses not kill patients. "DWD is the humane thing to do" This is basically saying it is compassionate to kill them because they have no hope of recovery. "A century ago, high blood pressure, pneumonia, appendicitis, and diabetes likely meant death, often accompanied by excruciating pain. Women had shorter life expectancies than men since many died in childbirth. Antibiotics, immunizations, modern surgery and many of today’s routine therapies or medications were unknown then. " [4] It is never humane to kill humans, and there is always hope for a cure. Now to the objections 1. Immoral One of the most famous philosophers of ethics was Immanuel Kant. He came up with a system of figuring out if an action was moral or not called the Categorical imperative. The Categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. In using the this method Kant condemned all forms of suicide by saying the purpose pain is to protect one’s life [5] , such as taking your hand out of a fire because it burns, and by using pain as a reason to end one’s life was contradictory to the purpose of pain and was therefore immoral. We usually strive to be moral beings, so we should avoid from having immoral acts. 2. Subjectivity Due to the laws subjectivity there are never clear answers. In the Oregon Death with Dignity act Terminal Illness is defined as “means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months" [1] Things such as pain, suffering, or terminal illnesses are all subjective and you could get different opinions between different doctors, and why is the limit six months for physician assisted suicide and not four or eight months? There is no sound medical reason for why six months are chosen. Since there is subjectivity, it makes the law hard to enforce and have safeguards for. 3. Right to Die The courts have ruled on physician assisted suicide and there was no constitutional right to die. In the case Washington v. Glucksberg the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Washington’s ban on physician assisted suicide was not a violation of the fourteenth amendment and there was no constitutional right to die. [6] They ruled the same in the similar case of Vacco v. Quill. As far as the courts are concerned there is currently no legal right to euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. 4. Slippery Slope The legalization of voluntary euthanasia/physician assisted suicide would lead down a slippery slope to other non-voluntary euthanasia. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2001 but have they gone down the slippery slope? In 2004 the Netherlands passed something called the Groningen Protocol. This allows the non-voluntary euthanasia of infants. [7] So, as far as the slippery slope is concerned the Netherlands is well on their way down and there nothing stopping other countries from following. We should not legalize PAS because it will lead to other more damaging things. 5. Voluntary? Voluntary euthanasia is not as voluntary as you might think. The most famous euthanasia program was the one that took the lives of eleven million people in the 1940s, the infamous holocaust. The victims of the Nazis were Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, Homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and people with disabilities. In particular the Nazis attacked people with disabilities with a propaganda campaign portraying them as burdens to society and their families. "The principal reason people in a 1991 Boston Globe survey said they would consider some option to end their lives if they had “an incurable illness with a great deal of physical pain” was not the pain, not the “restricted lifestyle,” and not the fear of being “dependent of machines,” but rather that they “don’t want to be a burden” to their families. Family members who support the suicide of a terminally ill patient often unwittingly reinforce the notion that the ill family member’s life has lost all meaning and value and is nothing but a “burden. ”" [8] "Many elderly people already feel a burden to family, carers and a society which is cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request euthanasia 'freely and voluntarily'. These patients need to hear that they are valued and loved as they are. They need to know that we are committed first and foremost to their well-being, even if this does involve expenditure of time and money. The way we treat the weakest and most vulnerable people speaks volumes about the kind of society we are" [2] So, voluntary euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide is almost as voluntary as in Nazi Germany. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: [1] . http://euthanasia.procon.org... [2] . http://www.ethicsforschools.org... [3] . http://www.life.org.nz... [4] . http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org... [5] . http://www.siue.edu... [6] . http://www.oyez.org... [7] . http://www.nejm.org... [8] . https://www.nrlc.org...

Title: physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, then it will greatly reduce the risk of suicides gone awry" How is this? just because people in hospitals are pulling the plug, does not mean that people who are crazy are going to stop killing themselves. the two things are not relevant to each other. contention one: the physician should try to save there life, not take it away. The physician is there to save the person's life,not to just give up and pull the plug. This is just me, but I would definitely like it if my doctor would go to the fullest to save me, try everything he/she can, not just be like, "oh sorry your dying, want me to kill you?"

Title: Legalize Euthanasia Content: As Pro has not defined euthanasia, I will do so: 'the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die' (1) I will be arguing that this practice ought not to be made legal. (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com...

Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: "...pro argues that you have the right to stop living if you so desire. However, this stands in direct contridiction of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Washington V. Glucksberg..." Yes, legalizing Euthanasia would go against an old law... that is the whole point... we are trying to make a new law. Referencing an old law doesn't count as "proof" when the whole purpose of the debate is to create a new law."...doctor who administers it violates the medical profession...the Hippocratic oath which states 'I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;' The job of the doctor and physician is to preserve and give comfort to human life, never to end it."I'm pretty sure I pointed out that doctors wouldn't be ADVISING suicide if a patient came in requesting it. The doctor would then have an opportunity to help the patient through suicide prevention therapy. That opportunity would not have been available if the patient tried comitting suicide privately. If even suicide prevention therapy doesn't work then the patient's death is inevitable, and there is no problem with a doctor taking the patient's life painlessly, rather than the patient taking his own life in more painful methods like hanging or shooting.

Title: Euthanasia needs to be made legal for those who need it Content: First Euthanesia (doctor assisted suicide) Should not be legal due to three main reasons that i will state with sub-topics. The reasons are, Value of human life, it undermines medicine research, its contradicts the right to live. Value of human life. As stated in the constitution, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happiness. " Euthanasia undermines the human life. Giving doctors the right to assist in suicide is giving power to doctors or to kill. All humans have the right to live. One does not choose his or her birth day, why should one choose his or her death day. This is a case of right to die versus right to kill. We have a right to die naturally. This is the reason when someone is murdered, the murderer is arrested. Samething in any case where a person does not die naturally. One could argue what about medicine and people who die from overdose and things like that because medicine is not natural. Dying naturally is simply the body not being able to handle whatever is the cause of death. Body not being able to handle medicine, alcohol, etc. Something that is not caused directly by someone else. Undermines medical research I understand people suffer. The pain is a big factor in this. Many with natural illnesses or termanlly ill want to die. One thing you have to consider is the medical research society has come to invent. Years ago, society lacked medicine, treatmants and such that temporarily help those who are suffering with their pain. By allowing someone to say "i want to do" and allowing this, the value of the medicine research that has been done to help treat the patient and potentially cure the patient is undermined. Eventually you fall into a society that could view it alright for a doctor to take the liffe of someone who wants to die. Same thing with suicide which is also illegal. By making this legal, you open a door that says "suicide is ok. " Many do not realize that people in critical conditions facing pain are often not in the right mind and suffer a false sense of worthlessness. That person may want to die simply because the pain is unbearable. Many in critical situations are not in the right mind. People whom have attempted suicide sometimes come to realize they do not wanna die, they just want happiness. It is difficult to let someone pursue happniess when we allow one to decide that their life is meaningless. Contradicts right to liveHumans have a right to live. We know this. We do not have a right to die though. If we had a right to die i beleive society would not be as strict on murders. If the right to die was in the Declaration of independence, or Constituion, a murder could simply kill and use the right to die as the reason for the murder. This could open doors for more murders and issues among society. Simply one cannot have a right to die as it is too vague. The right too die could be phrased as right to choose death. As far as it being a slow death, to many that slow death can be worth it to famliy members and others whom are effected directly. Overall i beleive people should not be allowed to decide that. Curing versus killing is a big part of the right to die. I beleive it should not be allowed because people are not always in the right mind when terminally ill, and often suffer from depression. There can be alternative treatments that prolong eath and can help patients. By offering the right of death it could lead to more people deciding it is better to kill then find a cure. This leads to unreasonable deaths.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: I thank you for a well though out response. I just want to state, no where in the United States has been euthanasia legal; however, there are 4 states with physician assisted suicide. 1. Immoral Pain is pain no matter what if it is physical or mental, its purpose is still to protect you by letting you know there is something wrong. Although my opponent offers his version of morality which is referred to as the Harm principle which is "As long as the action involves only consenting adults it is morally permissible.", but I don't believe this is really how he would determine morality. Irving Kristol wrote an argument to this saying "[T]he plain fact is that none of us is a complete civil libertarian. We all believe that there is some point at which the public authorities ought to step in to limit the "self-expression" of an individual or group even where this might be seriously intended as a form of artistic expression, and even where the artistic transaction is between consenting adults. A playwright or theatrical director might, in this crazy world of ours, find someone willing to commit suicide on stage, as called for by the script. We would not allow that-any more than we would permit scenes of real physical torture on the stage, even if the victim were a willing masochist. And I know of no one, no matter how free in spirit, who argues that we ought to permit gladiatorial contests in Yankee stadium, similar to those once performed in the Coliseum of Rome-even if only consenting adults were involved." [1] If this is really does believe this then All Drugs & Alcohol, Euthanasia/Suicide, Prostitution, Polygamy, Gay Marriage, Cannibalism, Bestiality, Incest, Public Nudity, Abortion (According to some people), Dueling/Fights to the Death, All weapons of any kind be owned should all be legal and is morally permissible; however I felt that I have shown that it does harm people like the disabled and the elderly. 2. Subjectivity It doesn't deny that it is the patients that feel pain, it implies you can get different opinions from doctors weather an illness is terminal, or you are in unrelievable pain. In fact he actually elaborates further on my point with "Pain can be tiny to one person but huge to another, the most basic example is that some people can walk over broken glass smiling!" Measuring pain does have to do with it because in place where euthanasia is legal "The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain." [2] Why does the family have to be okay with it? Should it not be solely up to the patient? I will address relief of pain later. 3. Right to Die No, I don't think this is a problem, but you said it was a Human rights; However, the supreme court unanimously disagrees. They also ruled similarly, 9-0, in Vacco v. Quill. [3] Also, it is not mentioned anywhere in the Universal Declaration of Human rights. [4] 4. Slippery Slope How isn't this a slippery slope? The Groningen Protocol is a form of Non-voluntary Euthanasia. How isn't it killing infants? You can't euthanize something that isn't alive. Yes, I would rather deny the infants right to life based on my subjective judgement that they don't want to live. When people receive their medical degree they have to take something called the Hippocratic oath. In the Hippocratic oath it prohibits directly or indirectly killing human beings. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. [7] By violating this oath how can we know the doctor is acting in the patients interest? A physician's role is to kill illnesses not kill patients. 5. Voluntary? You agree that elderly people feel they are a burden and would seek euthanasia because of it, but you think since it would be legal it would make families care more? Why do they need the ability for a doctor to kill them before families pay attention? Like you said if you knew a family member wanted to die, they could kill themselves many ways if they want to they don't need euthanasia to maybe have their families care. I also covered people with disabilities would also feel that "burden" too. In fact those are the two groups targeted by euthanasia the "non-providers", the weakest, and most vulnerable it only makes them feel worse. It was a euthanasia program. It is involuntary euthanasia, but it is still euthanasia. It rarely is an act of free will, so the comparison isn't as far off as you think because the Nazis were getting rid of the people who were "non-providers", the weakest, and most vulnerable. Euthanasia is "The term normally implies an intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who wishes to die." [5] 6. Pain Relief People say euthanasia provides a way to relieve extreme pain. This is like saying cyanide relieves depression. It is true that they don"t feel pain anymore abut they don"t feel good because they are dead. Now try it with the other example. It is true that they don"t feel depressed anymore but they don"t feel good because they are dead. There is also ways to relieve pain besides death. "It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available." [6] In countries with euthanasia Palliative care is poorly developed. [8] Sources [1] http://www.mandm.org.nz... [2] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org... [3] http://www.oyez.org... [4] http://www.un.org... [5] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [6] http://www.ethicsforschools.org... [7] http://www.life.org.nz... [8] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Title: euthinasia Content: First off, it was utterly painful to read my opponent's arguments... No periods or capitalization.. It was like reading a huge run-on sentence. ---Now to my case:"The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause." (Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997) [1] Supreme Court rules that physician-assisted suicide is unconstitutional. "'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect" (Hippocratic Oath) [2] The Hippocratic Oath, the foundation of the art and science of medicine, states that physician-assisted suicide should not be practiced. A five-year-old boy in Great Britain, after a long battle, survived deadly strain of E. coli, even though a doctor had said two years ago that he would have died over night. [3] Miracles (or, to the less religious, improbable phenomena) happen. It is not right to deny patients of a slim chance of recovery or a doctor's error. A misdiagnosis could lead to the suicide of a savable person. Also, a premature decision to commit suicide denies a patient of precious time to spend with family and friends. ---[1] http://law2.umkc.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized but with requirements Content: Euthanasia should be legalized, and there should be no restrictions. People should be able to die whenever they want, regardless of their physical and mental health. Life, being wearing of these worldly bars, should always be able to dismiss itself.

Title: we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives and a terminal illness Content: Stance: We should not support physician-assisted suicide for "those living tortured lives and a terminal illness". First and foremost, it would be preferable for this debate if the Instigator to give a precise definition of what a "tortured life" and "terminal illness" is. Until then, it will not be possible to supply articulated arguments against euthanasia (which I define as physician-assisted suicide). Since these vital definitions aren"t provided, this opening argument will instead criticize Pro"s opening arguments, which are flawed. The assertion that people"s greatest fear is suffering, not death, is insofar unsubstantiated. Also, our intuition of what to do to dogs and what to do with humans aren"t the same because humans are intrinsically more valuable than a dog (a dog, for example, cannot debate euthanasia on the Internet). The Instigator"s argument that many of us would our loved ones to die than suffer is also unsubstantiated. Furthermore, being against state-sponsored physician-assisted suicide isn"t so much about thinking the State is right; it"s about not letting the State have the legal ability to allow one take another citizen"s life. Finally, since even medical professions do not have total precision and accuracy of measuring someone"s lifetime, euthanizing someone would have survived much longer otherwise will inevitably occur.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: Thank you, Con, for posting this and I look forward to having my first debate on DDO with you.Clarifications:1. For scope, "legalized euthanasia" (henceforth PAS for physician-assisted suicide) should be defined in this debate. Since, as Pro, I will be defending it (and, since Con has not made any particular definition in round one) I find no harm in laying down specifics."Euthanasia (noun): the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma" [1] Pro will defend the verbal/written consent by the patient and written authorization of mental stability by an outside professional for the former, and prior written consent by the patient for the latter."Legalize (transitive verb): to make legal; to give legal validity or sanction to" [2] The only purpose in this definition is to make clear the physician never has the say in euthanizing patients. The decision will rest solely on the patient.2. So as not to make the focus of the debate about semantics, it's probably a good idea to define the "value" of human life."Values (noun): principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what's important in life" [3] As Pro, I will defend an individually based utilitarian approach on "values" (i.e. maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering). If Con disagrees with this, I think it's fair game to debate how the "value of life" should be interpreted and its consequential ethics.3. Both Pro and Con should share BoP when making positive claims. Pro should defend the benefits of legal PAS and Con should support claims otherwise. Without any reason to negate the resolution, the decision should default Pro.4. Sources should be cited when giving data or an empiric (or copy-pasting text from a cite [4]). Personally, credit should be given where credit is due.5. Any necessary clarifications between Pro and Con can be done in the comments, but the debate should remain in-round.All things considered, I'll continue with the debate.. . . . .As Pro, I will argue only one contention needs to be won to win this debate, or sufficiently negate Con's counter-arguments.Contention 1: The Value of LifeThe values of life, and those contained within life, should be the exclusive right of the person interpreting those values. The formulation of this is based on the following theorem:1. All that can be known exists in the physical world.2. Humans exist in the physical world.3. Humans are conscious beings.4. Conscious beings, ipso facto, create values.5. Genetic predispositions and experiences of conscious beings form values.6. No human beings observe the world simultaneously through experience.7. Therefore, humans create unique values separate from all others.Values are constructs of the human conscience and can only be based off of genetic predisposition and/or experiences. The latter is the focus, since predisposed values, such as procreation and good will, are exclusively left to the realm of evolution. Since it is safe to assume each individual human being has a unique set of observations throughout life, a person should have the ability to determine values of the self. The definition listed above supports this as values are defined as "one's judgement of what's important in life." This leads into the second argument:1. Life has value, if and only if, it functions as a medium for experience.2. Life allows for observations and experience.3. Therefore, life has value.If a person is able to have the ability to gauge importance and observe the advantages/disadvantages to life (as a value), they should, when terminally ill, be given the right to choose between a peaceful end and suffering. From an individualistic utilitarian standpoint, a person is within reason to choose PAS when they have an excruciating terminal illness, as it avoids the inevitable pain in those last few moments of life.Contention 2: The Right to Life and DeathIn America, citizens have the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as shown by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. [5] These rights are supported by the Government, "deriving their powers from the consent of the governed." If Pro can prove the right to life necessitates the right to death, the government is obligated to support PAS as they are fulfilling their duty to serve the people.1. People have a right to life.2. A world beyond life cannot be known.3. If a world beyond life cannot be known, death is the end to values.4. Terminal illness guarantees death.4. Therefore, people have a right to death, if and only if, they are terminally ill.This provides the parameters for how people should view life in relation to death. Since all we know and all we can observe/experience exists in the physical world, values (a construct thereof) should only be taken as an extension of physical property. Life is something a person owns at his/her own will, not as an obligation. Once it is medically established beyond reason a patient will die from an illness, values may be taken into perspective, since they know their clock is, essentially, running out.Contention 3: MercyIt is well established a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment according to the U.S. Constitution's fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court consistently defends the right to life and liberty would be violated if a hospital forced treatment for their patient. [6] This catch-22 leaves the doctor in a lose-lose scenario. Either, the doctor abridges the patient's constitutional rights, or s/he carries the burden of knowing an alternate solution would have produced less suffering. A common retort is the fallacious argument that PAS is murder. The false assumption is that it is the doctor's decision to assist in the process. Since, it is exclusively the patient's decision, the doctor is absolved of all responsibility. Evaluating a paradigm of values, the doctor would actually be doing the wrong thing by barring PAS as an option, since this would lead to more suffering.. . . . .Rebuttal:"Euthanasia devalues human life"1. Con has the BoP to show how a patient ending their own suffering devalues their life (which, my first contention refutes).2. Arbitrarily deciding life itself has more worth than the values a patient follows, necessarily devalues that patients life.3. A patient who believes their life will be devalued during/after PAS is free to not choose that route."Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment"1. It is Con's BoP to show how it will be used as such when the decision rides solely on the patient."Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death"1. Con should defend why PAS is worse than patient refusal of treatment to speed up the process.2. This point was covered in contentions two and three."There is a 'slippery slope' effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only the terminally ill and later the laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily."1. Empirical slippery slopes are difficult to defend because they assume same-case scenarios. Con's empiric cites no such data. BoP has not been met.2. Even if there are empirical examples, to say one good law shouldn't be passed because another law might be passed without proving why is an argumentum ad ignorantiam at best.3. Contention one indicates the value of individual life should outweigh this measure.Back to you, Con :)[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[4] http://www.euthanasia.com...[5] http://www.archives.gov...[6] http://law2.umkc.edu...[7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Title: Euthanasia will desensitize public to idea of killing to solve problems Content: Euthanasia will give the impression that it is OK to kill or to commit suicide when faced with a problem. This is a bad example to set.

Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: Not all pain can be alleviated with palliative care, so both assisted suicide and palliative care should be options for the patient."If the person would like to end their life right away" I support waiting a long time before proceeding with euthanasia in case the patient changes their mind.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: Firstly, pro argues that you have the right to stop living if you so desire. However, this stands in direct contridiction of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Washington V. Glucksberg where the majority opinion read "The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause." Therefore under American Law there is absolutely no right to die. Pro also argues that they would only have the option and not be forced to administer it. Perhaps this is true, but any doctor who administers it violates the medical profession. They go against the body that forms the policy for medical treatment as well as the Hippocratic oath which states "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;" The job of the doctor and physician is to preserve and give comfort to human life, never to end it.

Title: People should be allowed to commit suicide Content: My opponent disagrees that as a society people should just consider suicide moral or immoral. However, the premise of this argument is if people should be legally allowed to take their life. Since legality is suppose to in some ways reflect morality, it is very important that people consider the issue as moral or immoral. My opponent has pointed out that there are two sides to every issue to which I agree. Thee statistics my opponent presented were taken from a gall up pole which was designed to assess Americans belief on if people should be allowed to help a "terminally ill" patient commit "suicide" if the patient requests it, and if doctors should be allowed by law to "end" a "terminally ill" patient's life by some painless means if the patient and family request it (1). Terminally ill is the status of a person expected to die within 6 months from a specific condition(2). This is important to define because my opponent is arguing on behalf of the emotionally and mentally disturbed. I feel it would be more of a challenge to argue the issue of the terminally ill and how active and passive methods for terminating a life compare morally to one another. My opponent however has argued that if an individual has any form of suffering they have the right to end their life. I would like to point out that there are advocates of assisted suicide that don't feel issues outside terminal illness give one the justification to commit suicide. For example Professor Lewis Wolpert states "I am totally for voluntary euthanasia for those with terminal illnesses…But depression is not a terminal illness."(3) I fail to see how the fact that the issue being controversial makes it logical to legalize it. There are many people with deferent beliefs that contradict our laws causing controversy and by the logic presented we should just legalize it. This logic to me seems illogical. The only advantage I have heard from the opposing side is that it ends suffering early. When it comes to a permanent action like suicide one should try every option available. My opponent's example of a person dropping a bomb who has not point for therapy, would most likely be suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (4). The most commonly prescribed class of medications for PTSD is the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants (5). This added with psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, EMDR and hypnotherapy can be an effective treatment. When it comes to such a permanent solution as death a person has nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying alternative methods. Losing a parent to suicide makes children more likely to commit suicide and increases their risk of developing a range of major psychiatric disorders(6). Suicide can affect all those who have extended contact with the individual like neighbors, coworkers, classmates, friends, and etc. Suicides of entertainers, politicians, and other well know figures cause a spike in the suicide rate. Example after the suicide of Marilyn Monroe the nation's suicide rate rose by 12% (7). It is also found that the suicide of a co-worker or colleague increases the likely hood of individuals within that organization to attempt suicide (7). Media coverage of a suicide also increases the suicide rate (7). This is occurring with the attempt of suicide being illegal imagine if it was legal and more accepted in our society. What about the parents of a child who commits suicide? They have put time, money, and care into raising a child who dies way before their parents. The parents may wonder what they did to cause this and what they could have done better. What about the parent who can't have any more kids and their only child decides life is too hard and decides to end his life. Pity can only be a component of justice if responsibility is taken into account. My opponent disagrees every day an individual goes without killing himself is progression. Does that mean you should not exercise everyday because you still feel fat? No that is illogical and repairing mental health as easy as repairing physical health there are a lot more components to it, and also like building muscle the progress may not be quite as noticeable even though it is your mental health. I think that is absurd that my opponent thinks all the family deserves is a "it is not you it is me" letter. My opponent suggest the individual should set up care for their family, which is the most responsible suggestion my opponent has made. My opponent's statement on how the family will easily get over it has evidence to support it and sounds absurd. My opponent seems to care welfare of none family members over family, I feel we should be concerned with both. If suicides can influence others to commit suicide is that not indirectly killing them which according to you is irresponsible. Letting someone who is mentally ill commit suicide is as irresponsible as letting a child do whatever they want. Example little jimmy wants to juggle knives, let him it is body and I am sure his six year reflexes will be improved by this experience. I have trouble understanding my opponents end argument because there seems to be contradictions. It also seems that adding "if nothing else works " is my opponents way of making a irresponsible thing seem a little more responsible, but it is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing Source: (1)http://www.gallup.com... (2)http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (3)http://www.telegraph.co.uk... (4)http://psychcentral.com... (5)http://psychcentral.com... (6)http://www.sciencedaily.com... (7)Comer, Ronald J.. Abnormal psychology. 7th ed. New York: Worth Publishers, 2010. Print.

Title: Oregon's Death By Dignity Law. Content: Still definitions.I maintain that this act legalises physician-led euthanasia, for two reasons. This is because of the nature of the act means that the doctor gives the patient the means to kill themelf. The distinguishment between suicide and euthanasia is irrelevant, though, as the contentions remain the same.The Horror of the 5%As my opponent constructed a case where Matthew wanted to commit suicide, we must look at his life very carefully. What would Matthew rather do? Would he rather be dead, or continue living painlessly, and with full autonomy? It is blatant that he would rather continue living without pain. As the work by Kobler-Ross showed, people can live without pain with ease in our modern society: thus, the law in place is a lazy solution. Instead, we can help Matthew continue living freely and autonomously: what my opponent puts simply is taking an emotional case, and capitalising on it: using matthew as a means to her end of convincing people with rhetoric, not facts. But here are the facts: 5% of people will die. Only 5% of people can be not saved (though my source, who is more respected and unbias states that all can be saved from death) will die, and can die without pain thanks to modern technology, without having to give them the means to die. This means 95% can be saved, but will die, due to the initiation from this law. My opponent is pleading to allow this extreme minority of 5% to die quickler, not less painfully. I am pleading that we allow the 95% to live freely and not die. I could similarly provide an emotional case like Matthew's, but where someone is pronounced terminally ill, yet the doctors were wrong, and the person comes out alive and brilliant. John Matzke was diagnosed with 18 months to live[1]. He could have, and wanted to, die. However, the law was not on his side: euthanasia was not legal. So he tried to fight for his life instead. After the fight, he fought the disease into remission. If he killed himself, then this could never have happened. Assisted suicide would have been this person's worst decision. And this is but one case of the 95%. The death by dignity law is unintelligent, irrational, and cold-hearted.Death with "Dignity" is an unreasonable choice for those 5%Again, I'd like to reaffirm this. We know there is a better solution for those with euthanasia: Kobler-Ross' work shows us that we can give great quality of life, free of pain, to all with terminal illnesses. We also know many recover from terminal illnesses. Finally, we know that people would choose life over death. My opponent did not refer to my thief analogy, so I will refer to it again: a rational, uncoerced man knows stealing is wrong. Similarly, a rational, uncoerced mind knows that life is better than death. Only pain leads us to make irrational decisions - something we all know well - and the fear of living with pain is what troubles us. However, without pain, people have always decided to pick life. Again, referring back to On Death and Dying (by Kobler-Ross): "Those in my care, when free [of pain], accept their time will come, and wait for it, not hasten it."[3] The only reason these people wish to die is the pain, which we can manage. My opponent has given no examples of any cases where the pain is uncontrollable: even the case of Matthew, with skin cancer, has simple and powerful control mechanisms to the pain to make it "minimal"[2], and patients have reported to "forget the pain entirely"[3]. Thus, the death with dignity is unreasonable for 5%, and unreasonable for 95%. However, we must finally state that hard cases make bad laws: the exception or two to the rule will open floodgates. Further, Kantian ethics remains the strongest answer to the Oregon question. We should not make exceptions for this law, simply because of the connotations of making exceptions. We cannot make laws based on exceptional cases. Hard cases make bad laws. I wish to make a very long quotation to explain this idea. I usually just rewrite the statement, but I am low on characters, so... "issue hangs on the "rarity principle." We all see the need for a law against murder. But do we need a law for a bad act that happens at one millionth the rate of murder? Probably not. Legality should offer only a blurry reflection of morality, not its mirror image. Whereas morals delineate complex fractal lines, laws should follow smooth contours free of singularities. As the saying goes, "Hard cases make bad laws." This is not a weakness of the law but a strength: that's how it can be both universal and enforceable. TBS theorists will agree but say: "Look, 1,000,000/1,000,000 = 1, so an action likely to cause one million deaths at one millionth the rate of murder matches the expected harm of murder, and hence merits its own law; ergo, legalize torture. QED." A three-word refutation: Break the law. No one's yet suggested a new speed limit sign: "55 — Unless You're Taking Your Dying Uncle To The Hospital." Speed up if you must, and pay the price later. Tucking exceptions into law is courting the same trouble as overfitting a machine learning classifier, ie, loss of generalizing power and diminished appeal to universality."[4]The feeling of a pinprick...This argument went untouched. Maybe the audience can interpret a response better than I can, but I cannot see a response, so I cannot discuss this myself.ConclusionTo conclude, I shall end with a quotation by Bentham, a Utilitarian, as my opponent ended with Kant. "The question is...can [humans] suffer?" This is the important issue, and Bentham recognised this. Pain, not death, is what is important. Why? Because pain clouds judgement. By removing this pain, we address the problem. Oregon's law does not address the problem, it only ignores it: it hides it under the carpet. The problem is that these people are in pain, and it affects their judgement. We need to solve the problem of these people being in pain. People who aren't in pain don't want t die: it is irrational to kill them with this knowledge. Let us do the right thing, and ease their suffering, not just kill them off. Thank you.1 - http://discovermagazine.com...;2 - http://www.cancercenter.com...3 - On Death and Dying4 - http://www.cs.princeton.edu...

Title: Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America Content: My opponent makes no argument for why we should favor his interpretation of the right to life over my interpretation. My argument was dropped, so we must assume that the right to life only includes the right to keep your life, and not the right to do with it whatever you wish. However, despite my thoughts on the right to life, I believe that assisted suicide should be legal. Not because it would fulfill a right, but because it would reduce unnecessary suffering to those who will inevitably die without any reasonable chance of recovery or at least any remaining time without pain. Doctors should not kill their patients, and my arguments supporting that were dropped. Pro gives no reason as to why Euthanasia should be legalized that is unique to his plan over my counter plan (assisted suicide), and I have shown that his plan presents disadvantages that mine does not have. Therefore, you must negate.

Title: Assisted suicide should be legalized Content: I shall debate you on the topic of assisted suicide. I believe not only that Assisted is not moral right but if allowed, doctors would have the power to take human life away when someone very ill could not be the right state of clarity or mind. Just because a pactient is ill now, doesn't mean that all hope of finding what the illness that person has is impossible and so that doesn't mean a doctor should have the power away life just because hope is small or even lost. In all, assisted suicide is wrong not just morally, but it can allow a doctors or nurses to undermine the right to life just because at that moment the ill person in that moment what's to die.

Title: Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia should be legalized because people that is suffering should have the rigth to decide if they want to do euthanasia. Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people should approve it.

Title: Euthanasia should be legal Content: I believe that euthanasia should be legal in countries that it is not legal in. Let me just put in that the definition of euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from a terminal illness.

Title: Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly Content: Alright, I will take the con side of this argument. I guess to start, euthanasia is illegal in most states and the question would be, why would making this legal be the right choice. The biggest thing with the opposing side is euthanasia is basically assisted suicide and is an inhumane way to end a persons life. I know this act is preformed to relieve a persons suffering, however it seems as though there are other ways to help with a persons suffering rather that just ending their life. Could there be another way to relieve a persons pain and suffering like certain drugs? A few questions for this topic I have are: Is euthanasia an only option for certain diseases? Is it the last resort in some cases? Out of the states where euthanasia is not legal, is there a large population of people that would support euthanasia? As I said before, could there be another option to relieve pain and suffering without ending a persons life?

Title: Euthanasia should become Legalized in the US Content: I would like to remind for the 3rd time. The resolution is Euthanasia should become Legalized in the US. It doesn't have to do with believing in god. There can be arguments on god with Euthanasia, but that is not what the opponent is doing. Again, Euthanasia is merciful for patients who choose to seek that route. Due to the nonexistent clash in this debate. I would like to remind my opponent not to make any new arguments because I do not have a 6th round to finally talk about Euthanasia. However, because we have been talking about I do want to end with one quote from a doctor: "If I do not help him, do I not play God, taking away from him the option of a gentle and, in his eyes, a rational death" Life is about rationality. The separation between truth, and falsehood, is required to live a meaningful life. There should not be a grey area. So if a patient deliberately asks to end their painful terminal life, it should be our duty as a society to give them the dignity. Thus I offer a set line that will separate the rational and irrational in medical decision. That is to legalize Euthanasia for quality of life to terminally ill patients.

Title: Legal Euthanasia Content: What would be necessary for you to switch sides in this argument? Would there ever be a situation in your opinion that made it ok to legally euthanize? Would there be a specific condition or disease that had specific symptoms that would make it ok for someone to commit suicide by chemical drugs? What if they didn"t have any family or friends and they were all alone having to deal with so much pain? Would there be any situation that would make it ok for physician assisted suicide?

Title: Euthanasia Content: This debate will be just your standard Euthanasia debate. The prompt: Euthanasia should be legal in the US.

Title: we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives Content: whatever reasons the person wants to end his life, are sufficient, as long as he is understood by professionals to be tortured, like he is in pain etc.You're saying that suicide is moral. This is a slippery slope. At one point do we justify that euthanasia should not be permitted? If a patient is experiencing back pain and is suffering from it, do we allow him to kill himself because it's his right? You're arguing based on patient rights but the way you addres it brings up more problems than answers. If I bullied you all through highschool, would it be fair to kill me? These examples demonstrate that you need to have a clear understanding of why the patient is suffering and why he wants to be euthanaized, however, no one can justify a patient's choice but himself. It's a grey area that if not enforced properly, can lead to abuse of power.we have to make rules that catch the far and wide majority, which euthanasia laws do just that. There are currently no laws on euthanasia and when you're trying to make laws based off of opinions, they fail. Laws are definite, opinons are infinite. They are based off of people's own perception and experiences. You cannot make a law that can draw a clear distinction between right and wrong in this situation, because people's opinions fluctuates.'i can grant be considered, but asyou yourself ackowedge, there's a right ot the patient's body and soverignty Yes, part of the consideration is due to patient rights, however, patients rights are limited in certain circumstances for the safety of the individual or for society. If I was diagnosed with chronic depression. No matter what I tell my doctors that I want to do with my body, they will not abide to my decisions because I am considered to be in altered mental status. Again, in the case of euthanasia, the distinciton between patient rights and environmental factors becomes muddled (repeating reasons stated in R1)you are basically just listing some negative points. nothing is perfect. the bottomline essence is that we need to allow for people's suffering and soveriengty, but it is the right thing to doYou're right. Let's just kill them off cause it's easier.

Title: should disabled have the right to suicide Content: Assisted suicide, also known as Euthanasia, is a delicate topic. While I concede that there are many moral arguments on the side of the pro side, there are often factors that are not taken into account when debating Euthanasia. My opponent has brought up the pain argument. Yes, I agree that many disabled and terminally ill patients experience extraordinary pain. However, modern medicine has the ability to control pain. A person who seeks to kill him or herself to avoid pain does not need legalized assisted suicide but a doctor better trained in alleviating pain.

Title: Euthanasia must be made legal in India Content: It is time to support the concept of right to die with dignity in the same manner as the human race endorses dignity of life. A man in PVS will be suffering more mental pain than that of physical pain.There are limits to human suffering, especially when there is no light at the end of the tunnel. A terminally ill patient cannot be kept on life support with the hope that, in the foreseeable future, there may be developments in medicine which may save him or her. Quality of life is as important as life itself. People argue that if euthanasia is legalised, it could be misused; but isn't that the case with most of the existing laws? Strong safeguards should be put in place to avoid any kind of misuse, and euthanasia should be allowed only when no amount of palliative care can help the patient recover. This debate has caused a schism within people from all walks of life. The people who matter most are those who have to endure unimaginable suffering, both physical and mental, and who may be forced to take the route of euthanasia. Death is never the first choice, and people opt for this path only because there is none other left to take. To die on one's own terms can be a boon for both the patients and their families who have to go through this ordeal. Being a human one should not forget the humane values and must work for legalising euthanasia. Good luck to whoever accepts my debate!

Title: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized. Content: First, you have significantly altered the debate with your statement that you are "referring to terminally ill patients that doctors say will be dead in a couple months or so." That was not mentioned in your opening statement. However, I believe that all of my arguments still stand because it is not impossible for a cure to be discovered in that couple of months, or for the disease to go into remission, or even for a miracle to happen (even if you don't believe in God, quantum uncertainty and the laws of probabilities make it possible). I disagree with your statement that a contract and further tests would "bypass the doctors' ethical obligations." If physician assisted suicide was legalized, it would solve the LEGAL problems, but it would do nothing for the ethical issues. I still hold that a doctor knowingly allowing a person to kill themselves is a breach of ethics under nearly any circumstances. (there are exceptions such as warfare, but none that are relevant to this debate). In completely agreeing with my second argument, are you also agreeing to the part that says "The desire to commit suicide could actually be considered a mental disorder in and of itself, as it displays a violation of the survival instinct." ? Augustine's point stands regardless of actual innocence. It is just as illegal for me to walk up and shoot a terrorist in broad daylight as it is for me to do the same to a child. This argument is based more in philosophy than in enforcement. Obviously, I am not arguing that there should be a penalty for committing suicide, but rather that it is wrong to do so. It is therefore wrong to help someone do so.

Title: euthanasia Content: Euthanasia is indeed a very complicated process, and questions on the basis of our own mortality will always be extremely difficult morally and spiritually. There are many questions, as my opponent has shown, that can prove to be difficult in answering whether or not euthanasia should be a legal practice. I will attempt to answer these questions now, providing a suitable basis for moral and ethical euthanasia. >Is it an option when a man is suicidal? You may think that people who want euthanasia are suicidal because they want to die, or you may not think that. If it is indeed suicide, it would depend on the circumstances. >Is it the choice of the man to be mercy-killed? Euthanasia is a very complex choice for those who wish to do it. If somebody is suffering and will not survive their illness, then it is justified for the person to terminate their own life to avoid the prolonging of their own suffering and the suffering of others. >Is it the choice of his friends and family? No. If a terminally ill person wants to live on, that is their decision. >Can any man say it was a mercy-kill? This depends on what you mean, again. Since it is up to the patient, the death is caused by a terminal sickness but suffering is reduced by the patient's own actions. >Can we trust the doctor? Doctors are generally trustful, but I understand your scepticism when it comes to deciding death. I would make necessary for euthanasia to have consultations with TWO SEPARATE physicians to determine whether an illness is terminal and if euthanasia could be justified from the suffering, and a psychiatrist to determine if the patient has a sound mind to decide their own death. You suggest that euthanasia cannot be regulated, but this is what supporters of euthanasia are trying to do. Currently it is not illegal for a terminally ill person to kill themselves, it is only illegal for those to assist him. Making euthanasia LEGAL AND REGULATED would place necessary barriers to make euthanasia open and safer for those who are terminally ill and suffering.

Title: Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia should be allowed. I look forward to a lively debate.

Title: Should euthanasia be legal Content: In your argument you are suggesting assisted suicide. By your opening sentence " Euthanasia should be legal for anyone who no longer desires to live..." According to afsp.org 494,169 people visit the hospital a year for self harm and suicide attempts. By allowing people to have the option to euthanize themselves you are giving them an easy way out. When people are rendered incapable of taking care of themselves they are given a proxy, a family member or friend, that is able to chose what happens to them.

Title: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized. Content: I would like to reinforce my statements that for a doctor to kill someone or help them kill themselves, they must go against ethical guidelines, killing someone is never in their best interest, and that a desire to commit suicide is a sign of mental illness. Assisted Suicide is immoral, unethical, and should remain illegal.

Title: Euthanasia Content: I'll state my position and then my contentions. My position is that Elective Suicide is Okay. My position is that Assisted Suicide is Not Okay. My contention is that power of attorney is too easy to abuse and people can be coerced or end up with a person who doesn't have their best wishes at heart making the decision. My contention is that there is not good way to fix this problem and therefore Euthanasia is immoral. That is not to say that I am against the elderly killing themselves. Your floor.

Title: Assisted Suicide. Content: I stand in strong negation to the following resolution that assisted suicide should become legal. Contention 1: Assisted suicide is immoral. Contention 2: Assisted suicide is against what god wants for us. Contention 3: Suicide doesn"t solve anything. Contention 1: Assisted Suicide is immoral. Would you help someone kill another person? No. So why is it any different if you"re helping someone kill themselves instead of helping them? Contention 2: Assisted suicide is against what god wants for us. God put us on this earth to learn. Helping someone kill themselves ends their opportunity to learn. Contention 3: Assisted suicide doesn't solve anything. We can"t just kill ourselves every time life gets hard.

Title: Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill Content: Let's start with Pro's concessions: (1) euthanasia creates risks of abuse/error, and (2) not all terminally ill patients suffer. The first concession means that euthanasia shouldn't be legal if there's better alternatives. The second concession undermines all of Pro's offense on suffering, because the resolution requires that Pro support euthanasia for all terminally ill patients, not just those who suffer. Pro's case is vague, inconsistent, and incoherent. In R2, for example, Pro says the government doesn't have the right to intervene in matters of death. I pushed back on that, so in R3, Pro says the government should intervene in death, enact appropriate safeguards, record the event, and so on. Pro even says the government should help us make moral decisions, which sounds like paternalism rather than libertarianism. Now, in R4, Pro advocates some sort of bizarre paternalistic libertarian framework, where the government gets to help us make moral decisions, like stopping us from committing suicide, but it doesn't get to prevent doctors from killing their patients. And apparently the government also gets to intervene in death, decide who is expendable enough to be killed and who isn't (i. e. someone who suffers enough and is terminally ill apparently isn't worth fully protecting), and create a system where risks of abuse/error are preferred to alternatives without risks of abuse/error. This simply makes no sense. The framework underlying Pro's argument is incoherent. The strangest argument Pro makes is his argument to prefer euthanasia over assisted suicide. Specifically, Pro says euthanasia is preferable because suicide is against the rules of two religions. But Pro doesn't advocate for these religions or their beliefs. Instead, Pro's argument rests on the idea that suicide isn't acceptable to these religious people, regardless of whether the religions are right or wrong. This argument isn't remotely compelling. The idea that voluntary euthanasia isn't suicide is bizarre: in both euthanasia and suicide, the patient intentionally acts to end their own life. The key difference is that euthanasia involves numerous risks of abuse and error because it empowers doctors to kill their patients, while assisted suicide and regular suicide don't. And the notion that we should enact a human right based on the preferences of a few religious people is simply unconvincing, especially when these two religions probably prohibit euthanasia anyway. Pro says we should enact rights based on the majority, but the entire point of human rights is to protect the minority from the majority. So that point also fails. Pro says I'm denying these religious people the right to die, but I'm not denying them anything. Their decision to commit suicide or to live through their suffering is a personal one that they make, on the basis of their religious views. They're free to change their religious views just as I'm free to change mine. Either way, the government shouldn't be enacting human rights on the basis of religious views. The reason risks of abuse/error matter is because there's other options with no risks. For instance, suicide -- no doctor can mistakenly or intentionally end your life against your wishes when you commit suicide. The decision is completely yours. The same goes for assisted suicide, since you personally have to end your own life. Euthanasia simply gives doctors too much power over our lives, and the risks that entails aren't worth it, because there's other ways to end our lives, end our suffering, without any risks. Pro's responses aren't persuasive. On suicide and the right to refuse medical treatment, Pro says he supports both but they're illegal in some places. However, that argument has no impact on the resolution, since the resolution is a normative one. Pro is advocating a change in the law, which means I can advocate a different change in the law that's preferable to Pro's change. I advocate the right to suicide, the right to refuse medical treatment, and in extreme cases, the right to assisted suicide. And my point is that there's no reason to legalize euthanasia simply because patients aren't allowed to commit suicide or refuse medical treatment. The solution to that problem is recognizing a right to suicide and a right to refuse treatment. You should prefer my solution because it doesn't have any of the risks associated with euthanasia. On involuntary euthanasia, Pro says it's illegal everywhere. But this is untrue. The Netherlands legalized involuntary euthanasia a few years after legalizing voluntary euthanasia. This happened because both forms of euthanasia rest on the same logic: ending suffering. Pro's entire case rests on this same logic. The utilitarian project of weighing suffering against the right to life inevitably leads to involuntary euthanasia when suffering significantly outweighs the right to life. Of course, that determination is left to doctors and the state, which is what makes involuntary euthanasia such a frightening proposition. In response, Pro says that doctors won't be able to kill their patients painlessly if euthanasia is illegal. But that's untrue. And even if it's true, it's irrelevant. The point is that we need to discourage doctors from murdering their patients. If euthanasia is legal, there's less deterrence. There's always the excuse that it was a mistake (hence the risks of abuse). And there's risks of coercion. Pro admits that euthanasia turns doctors into killers. Pro's torture point wasn't ignored; it was addressed by recognizing the right to refuse medical treatment. Doctors aren't under any obligation to prolong suffering. I also addressed it by pointing out access to palliative care. And in extreme circumstances, doctors can terminally sedate their patients, ending all suffering while still keeping their patients alive. This ensures that the medical profession remain focused on curing disease rather than killing. Finally, extend my argument on equality. Pro's asking us to enforce an arbitrary distinction between people. In response, Pro says he's giving the right to euthanasia to everyone, except you only get the right when you're terminally ill. Well, not everyone is terminally ill, so not everyone has the right to euthanasia. Pro simply misunderstands my argument. Or his argument makes no sense. Or I'm too stupid to understand it. Either way, it's not important, because I win the debate on all the rest of the points addressed above. Also, remember that euthanasia rests on the notion that human life only has instrumental value. Pro completely ignores that point, so extend it fully. The impact is that any rationale for equal protection of the law drops away, because there's no reason to treat people equally if we don't actually think they're equal. Equality requires that we recognize the intrinsic value of human life.

Title: Euthanasia Content: First off, I would like to state that I am actually AGAINST Euthanasia, but I am trying to sharpen my debate skills right now. A good debater can see both sides of the issues and figure out what their opponent to say next. So this is just me experimenting a bit. Now that I have explained my real position, let me start off with some reasons why Euthanasia should be legal. 1. Dying with Dignity: If they are able to speak for themselves and they say that they would like to go ahead and peacefully die, then they should get that as their last wish. 2. Suffering: Would you rather somebody suffer for days with an imminent fate, or would you just let them be peacefully put out of their misery? I don't think that they should have to suffer. 3. Free Will: I think that if the patient is in his right mind and wants to go ahead and end it, they should have the free will to have their wish. I look forward to hearing your response and/or counter-argument. I am glad that I accepted this debate.

Title: Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill Content: Pro makes three fatal errors. First, Pro focuses entirely on justifying euthanasia for patients who suffer. This undermines Pro's case, because Pro concedes that "not all terminally ill patients suffer." Thus, Pro fails to uphold the resolution with respect to terminally ill patients who don't suffer.Second, Pro concedes that the government has a right to intervene in our lives, to helps us make moral decisions, and to provide security. This undermines the vast majority of Pro's offense, as his libertarian framework crumbles the moment he accepts the legitimacy of government intervention in morality.Third, Pro concedes that there's risks of abuse/error. At the same time, Pro fails to explain why euthanasia is preferable to suicide, to refusing medical treatment, or even to assisted suicide. Each of these options allow a person to end their life without imposing severe risks of abuse/error.Vote Con for either of these reasons. To be thorough, the rest of Pro's arguments are addressed below:(1) SuicidePro suggests that we should legalize euthanasia but punish failed suicides. Or at least that seems to be what Pro's arguing. Of course, that argument is bizarre. Pro's C1, C2, C3, and C4 all support a right to suicide. It makes no sense to say we should legalize euthanasia but prohibit suicide. Pro says suicide isn't legal everywhere. This might be true, though I'm not sure. Pro didn't offer any sources to back up his claims that suicide isn't legal everywhere. Either way, who cares if suicide is illegal in some random parts of the world? Suicide is beyond the reach of the law; you can't punish someone who is dead. Besides, the issue in this debate isn't what the law is but rather what it should be. And no matter how many laws prohibit suicide, the question is still whether those laws are right or wrong.This means I'm free to advocate a right to suicide as an alternative to euthanasia. And all of Pro's arguments support a right to suicide, so don't let Pro argue that we should legalize euthanasia because suicide is illegal. That argument is simply absurd.(2) Assisted SuicidePro's argument to prefer euthanasia over assisted suicide isn't compelling. Pro states: "it is a controversial issue on whether or not euthanasia (where the doctor ultimately kills the patient) is considered to be suicide - as a result of this euthanasia is by far a better option. The legalization of euthanasia will benefit a much larger group of people than it will if assisted suicide is legalized."This argument is bizarre. Pro suggests that more patients will choose euthanasia over assisted suicide because euthanasia isn't suicide. But why should it matter how many patients will prefer euthanasia to assisted suicide? This debate isn't about the personal preferences of particular patients; the debate is about whether euthanasia should be recognized as a right. And just because more patients will choose a certain way of dying over another doesn't mean that way of dying should be embodied as a human right.Furthermore, Pro's argument is nothing more than an assertion. And it's far from self-evident that more patients will choose euthanasia over assisted suicide. On the contrary, lots of patients will choose assisted suicide over euthanasia because they prefer suicide to murder. And to be clear, Pro's advocacy is the equivalent of condoning murder, as euthanasia is nothing but the intentional destruction of another human being's life. Why will more people prefer murder to suicide? And even if more people prefer suicide to murder, why should we be encouraging the terminally ill to end their lives? The message Pro sends is that some people aren't just expendable, they should be killed by their doctors. The slope to involuntary euthanasia isn't far when you apply that logic.(3) SufferingPro's argument rests on the notion that people who suffer should be allowed to end their lives. And Pro explicitly asks for an alternative to euthanasia if suffering patients want to end their lives early. Well, those people are free to commit suicide. And they're free to refuse medical treatment. And in extreme cases, they can even request terminal sedation (assuming their religion doesn't allow suicide or euthanasia). Or you could make lethal drugs freely available in pharmacies, provided that you have mental heath checkups and are capable of rational thought. There's lots of alternatives to euthanasia for people who want to end their life early as a result of immense suffering.The point I'm making in this debate is that in no cases should doctors be allowed to intentionally kill their patients on the basis of a determination that their patients are experiencing immense suffering. Doctors have alternatives to relieve suffering, including terminal sedation (i.e. put to sleep but not killed). The problem with allowing euthanasia via suffering is that it leads to involuntary euthanasia. And as I explained in R2, the empirical evidence bears this out (e.g. in the Netherlands). This happens because euthanasia is predicated on an utilitarian calculus that weighs suffering against a person's right to life. If the suffering outweighs, a doctor is allowed to intentionally kill the patient. Of course, this utilitarian calculus allows a doctor to decide their patient should be killed even if their patient wants to keep living, as long as the patient's suffering outweighs other factors. The reason this happens with euthanasia is because euthanasia assumes that human life has instrumental value rather than intrinsic value. If life has intrinsic value, it's never okay to intentionally destroy it. But when you start distinguishing the value of individual lives on the basis of instrumental factors, such as suffering, or mental disabilities, or being terminally ill, it suggests that certain instrumental factors must be present to give someone's life the full protection of the law. When those instrumental factors are absent, a doctor has the right to kill a patient. And in extreme cases, a doctor arguably has a duty to kill them, to end their suffering, even if the euthanasia is involuntary.(4) ReligionThe law should not turn on the religious view of a few. There may be religions that believe suicide is not allowed but euthanasia is. Those religions should not dictate public policy. Pro refers to Christianity. That's a bad example, because Christianity wouldn't allow euthanasia or suicide. This example actually works against Pro.(5) DiscriminationPro says that's specific to certain places, like the United States. This puts Pro in a bind: he either accepts that this debate should take into specific locations, in which case this argument is fully extended, or Pro admits the debate isn't specific to location, in which case all his arguments about suicide and medical treatment not always being available are irrelevant, since we're not talking about specific places but rather a general notion of what public policy should look like.(6) CorruptionPro admits that euthanasia turns doctors into killers. In response, Pro says prohibiting euthanasia turns doctors into torturers. But that is simply untrue. The doctors aren't imposing pain on anyone. They're simply refusing to kill their patients. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't give their patients pain medications, or allow their patients to commit suicide, or allow their patients to withdraw from medical care. The doctors aren't required to prolong a patient's life or to stop them from ending their own life. The only requirement is that doctors don't murder their patients, because that corrupts the medical profession.(7) EqualityPro says "equality is being offered the same rights." Yet Pro argues that only the terminally ill get the right to euthanasia. Everyone else gets the right to having their lives protected from intentional destruction by others. Either way, a critical rationale for equal protection withers and drops away, as a result of treating life's value instrumentally.

Title: physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: "This is just me, but I would definitely like it if my doctor would go to the fullest to save me, try everything he/she can, not just be like, oh sorry your dying, want me to kill you?" That is not relevant to my definition. I understand the point you're making, but it is unrelated to the debate at hand. You seem to be confusing physician-assisted suicide with euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide is when a physician helps someone commit suicide (see my definition). Euthanasia is the killing of an unconscious (usually terminally ill) patient by a physician, i.e. "pulling the plug". (http://depts.washington.edu...) "just because people in hospitals are pulling the plug, does not mean that people who are crazy are going to stop killing themselves. the two things are not relevant to each other." Generally, people who commit suicide are not crazy. They usually are suffering from severe depression or are experiencing extenuating circumstances. These people are reasonable enough to seek help from a physician. My opponent's contention is definitionally irrelevant, and two of my contentions stand unrefuted.

Title: Euthanasia Content: Thanks Con.Rebutals: The doctors duty isn't to euthanize Dcotors won't be forced to euthanize patients, similiar to how they aren't forced to perform surgeries. The docotors who do it would do it by choice.Lives are still worth livingEven if I agree to this, I would say that people have the right to choose whether they live or die. As I've shown before, this is lifting the pain from their shoulders. The right to life is a negative right if we don't allow the right to death .“Further, in nearly every country where a form of physician assisted suicide is legal, the vast majority allow the killing of people with mental illness. In the Netherlands--which my opponent cites directly--the mentally ill are often euthanized. In Belgium, the mentally ill are euthanized in order to take their organs. The fact is, whenever you legalize physician assisted suicide, the law eventually evolves into a death-on-demand structure which leads to many people not capable of making these decisions wisely being killed [2]”This calls for the law being enforced more sternly, not the law being withdrawn. By withdrawing it, we force the patients who would have been euthanized to suffer until their death, unless an unexpected event occurs. While if we keep it up, we can help these people.“Further, there is an issue of people in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada being murdered, as they are killed without explicit request. Obviously this is not legal, but the fact is that if it is legal to kill someone intentionally if they ask, it is easy just to put in your records ‘asked for death’ with minimal questioning from the law. In Oregon, the law began fairly successful. For 1/4 of patients asking for death, they received psychiatric care before their decision. They were walked through the process. However, by 2010, this has disintegrated. None of the people killed were told to seek mental care first”As I said before, this calls for a stricter enforcement of the law, as people should be checking with other doctors, which directly violates the procedure. Furthermore, as I had also said before non voluntary deaths occur regardless of whether we make it legal or not. In the study I had cited “Recent pieces by doctors bring excellent points to my opponents argument. When death becomes the answer, doctors see their patients have less faith in medical care. It is well established that people in the medical profession are a source of hope for their patients. To allow death leads to less hope, and it makes them feel unwanted--that at a certain point, life is not worth living. This is, as doctors argue, is one of the largest blows to human dignity. Further, this has led to a decrease in palliative care. Instead of easing pain and making the life worth living, physicians often choose death as a mean to end the pain, instead of attempting to help the patient.” The alternative wouldn’t be very different, as the patients who have pain that can’t be eased by a few pills are still suffering. They’re wondering why they don’t have a right to guide their own life. The patients should be able to choose between pills and death. They would know that their disease isn’t curable anyway, trying to hide it from them won’t help. Economic ImpactsHere my opponent seems to agree that euthanasia would benefit the economy. He brings up that different cuts could be made, but this doesn’t matter. The point is that there’s a benefit to the economy, showing a better way doesn’t take that fact away. Why not impliment multiple cuts?Non voluntary deaths will always occurMy opponent seems to mix “Voluntary” deaths with “non voluntary” deaths. Non voluntary acts of euthanasia will happen regardless of whether it’s legalized or not. It was just pointing out that deaths happening against the patients will are going to occur regardless of whether euthanasia is legalized or not. Now he then shows how the number of deaths from euthanasia are rising. This doesn’t matter, however, as I’ve already shown how euthanasia helps the patients who are in pain. My opponent hasn’t yet fully addressed the arguments given or misunderstands them. I’ve supported my arguments and rebutted his contentions. Good luck to Con, as next round is his final round for arguments.

Title: Euthanasia should be legal Content: Attempting suicide is against the law. Since euthanasia is painless suicide, then it is illegal. There should be no reason why we legalize painless suicide but not painful, convenient, or other methods of suicide.

Title: Bsh1 Debate Tournament: The U.S. Government Should Legalize Euthanasia. Content: We Already Allow Suicides:First of all, if a person is actually determined to commit a suicide and carries his/her actions out successfully, it does not make sense to have this action as illegal. We cannot imprison a body as a result, nor can we fault the family of the person committing suicide, ergo in this context of legality it simply makes more sense to legalize assisted-suicide by default. If the legal system is a set of state-enforced mechanisms to deter undesirable behaviours and to offer incentives to desirable behaviours, then we can see there is no reason to keep assisted suicides illegal, we cannot force that person to no longer want to kill themselves should they be successful. Say your life is only held onto by "life support", this machine is breathing for you, feeding you, and is the only thing actually keeping you alive due to a critical injury. You are in fact allowed to refuse it, causing your own death. In other words, by complicity the doctors allowing you to refuse treatment, they are assisting your suicide. Now one might say the doctors ought to force the patient, however this would void power of attorney, and ergo would be illegal in such an event. Doctors are suppose to comply with the consent of their patients, thus if the patient refuses treatment, this is a form of suicide. In fact, the following states already have legalized assisted suicides: Montana, Oregon, and Washington (State)http://www.cbc.ca... This Furthers the Liberty of the Individual: This argument is simple and straight-forward. You do not choose to be born or not. This seems to be in a half-determined part of the world. We all start as cells, and morph into people. If that is the case, then why can't a person refuse this life by euthanasia? The Physical Can Complete His Duty to His Patients More Intimately:In medical ethics, the doctor must do his best within the limitations of the law to relieve the pain of the patient. Along with the fact that he must preserve the dignity of said patient. If a patient has a terminal illness, then in the name of relieving pain, that doctor can and should put to death his patient to lessen the suffering. (Again on the condition of informed consent)Less Costly to the System: I shall quote a fellow DDO member on here in another debate, he put it elegantly. "Whatever way one looks at it, dying costs money. In fact, a person in Miami will be spending around $23,000 on medical bills in the last six months of his/her life [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com......]This cost is for dying without the use of PAS. However, a person, using PAS, would only spend approximately $10,000 (in 1995 dollars) on medical bills [http://www.nejm.org......]. I’d like you to think about that. If a person chooses to have a PAS, this would mean that his/her surviving relatives would have about $13,000 that they didn’t before to put toward a funeral (a traditional funeral ranges from $7,000 to over $10,000 [http://www.funeralswithlove.com......]), or other debts that may need to be paid. Let’s say that this patient who wishes to have a PAS, may have un-wealthy relatives, or he/she may be un-wealthy. Not only is he/she suffering, but he/she is also paying quite a bit of medical bills to be kept alive, especially when he/she doesn’t wish to be in the first place. So, given the opportunity to choose, not only would he/she be relieving his/herself of suffering, but also saving money for his/her relatives or beneficiaries as well." ~ DetectableNinjaAll Countries Named Have Universal Care When Giving Suicides:Legally, the only person capable of administering said assistance to suicide would be the doctors, that is it, not some private firm. This would ideally prevent anyone from trying to convince someone to undergo PAS for any fraudulent reasons. Finally, Say You're Married, and You Are a Proxy For Someone Incapable of Making Decisions: This can lead to a very uncomfortable scenario. The person trusted with making decisions may suffer from depression or other psychological trauma wondering if they're making decisions consistent with that patent's wishes. If someone was unable to move or speak, and was in pain, would they want to continue to fight? Or finally die and be at peace? Likewise, what about other people putting pressure on that proxy that might be in direct violation of the patients wishes? How would they feel? PAS is another option which enables this scenario to be completely by-passed, and not allow that poor person designated as a proxy to have to shoulder so much burden when the time comes (should it ever come). Thank you!Summary:(1) Already allow it, cannot charge a body(2) Furthers liberty(3) Doctor does his duty more(4) Save on costs (5) Relieves strains on proxies Therefore, we can conclude that the US ought to legalize doctor assisted suicides (a.k.a PAS) Over to my opponent!

Title: Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly Content: This issue is not as pressing as it has been in the past, but euthanasia, in general, has largely been debated, and I would like to continue that debate, arguing for the "Pro" side of euthanasia for the sick and elderly. Euthanasia, by definition, is the intentional taking of life in order to relieve pain and suffering, and for the sake of the argument, I would like to say that I believe euthanasia should be committed by a medical doctor, and only if the person requests to be euthanized. That being said, I really think that euthanasia should be legalized across the US. The rights given to the people by the United States Constitution include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given that death, regardless of cause, is an inevitable part of life, the Constitution also gives the people the right to die. If we are then given the right to die, why can we not choose how it is done? Secondly, there is no reason why the federal government or a state should interfere with the private matter of someone's death. Euthanasia itself causes no harm to any other person that would possibly be involved (like a family member in the room or something), and as such, should be left alone by any form of government. If anyone would like to argue the "Con" side of euthanasia, I would appreciate it - and if you really do believe that it shouldn't be legalized in America, what would it take to convince you?

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: In this debate I will be arguing in favor of legal Euthanasia programs globally, although with specific references to more western countries, and in particular the US, where only 4 states have legalized euthanasia. In my personal view I believe euthanasia to be a critical discussion as I see the illegality as straight-up restriction of the human right. The right to intentionally end ones life is one in which I feel should 100% be gratified. People who are perhaps in significant physical or mental pain who want this certainty upon them quicker than what perhaps their body can last is, I feel, fully justified. Of course there would have to be bureaucracy so the establishment that one is ready to die is fully committed and no other outside players were involved. I believe that the person wanting to end their life should be subjected to questioning before the act is taken, for example if the person is mentally unstable, irrationally wanting to end their life but is willing to accept help and try to get better then this could avoid lots of irrational endings of life as euthanasia is made legal. Euthanasia should maintain its controlled assessment of patients and should be a last resort, but however, should most definitely be made legal. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

Title: Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice Content: Thanks, Con. I will present a (very) brief constructive case, this round. Please note that I am only arguing for euthanasia *with* the consent of the patient-- if legalized, it would not be the decision of the patient's family members or the attending physician. The first thing that must be done in order to show that euthanasia should be legalized is to demonstrate that with the right to life comes the right to death. I think my opponent would agree that all citizens have a right to life, though I can certainly support that notion further if he wishes to contest it. Like is the case with any right, we have the right to abstain from exercising it; after all, if we cannot do that, it is no longer a right-- it is an obligation. The right to life does not require us to continue living any more than the right to free speech requires us to speak our minds. The government simply does not have the power to *force* someone to continue living when they do not wish to do so, as that would be a clear rights violation. So it has been established that people do, indeed, have the right to death. Now, why does this lead to the conclusion that euthanasia should be legalized? It is simply a matter of practicality. Having euthanasia administered in a clinical setting is by far the safest and least painful way for one to exercise their right to death (my opponent would have to provide some sort of counter-example to successfully contest this); by criminalizing euthanasia, the government is doing nothing more than unnecessarily causing suffering to citizens, which is clearly contradictory to the role of the state (i.e. promoting general welfare). Hence, euthanasia should be legalized. The resolution is affirmed.

Title: Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia is the act of putting to death in a painlessly way an animal or human when they are on a painful disease or condition. Should it be legalized?

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: Rebuttal I made three arguments to support my contention: 1. The right to die and self determination My opponent and I both support assisted suicide, and the right to commit suicide. But as he mentioned in round 2, we disagree whether euthanasia is a basic right. He argued that "under an autonomy principle, we'd have to honor requests to be euthanized from all competent individuals". I want to explain to my opponent that he appears to be misunderstanding what euthanasia is. Euthanasia only applies to those who don't have the means to commit suicide otherwise [1]. Euthanasia is less about the method (how it's done)… but more about the purpose (the right to die). The dying person couldn't care less about who would euthanatize them or how. They just want to die peacefully. By denying them the right to euthanasia, they are essentially being denied the right to die… they are denied the right to self determination… they are denied the right to autonomy. My opponent argues that "Pro can't justify euthanasia through autonomy, since his advocacy restricts the availability of euthanasia. " The reason that euthanasia shouldn't be allowed to everyone else is because most people have the ability to commit suicide. As I mentioned earlier, euthanasia is about the purpose (dying) not the method. There's no need for euthanasia for the average joe since they can commit suicide. For example, a Winnipeg woman travelled to Switzerland to take lethal pills and die [2]. There was no justification for euthanasia for her; however I hoped that Canada would have allowed her to receive the lethal drugs. 2. Wasted health resources and public funds My opponent challenges my claim that euthanasia would "reduce waiting times and improve the overall quality of care. " My opponent didn't agree or disagree that waiting times will be reduced (which logically would improve the quality of care). But he argues that economic matters shouldn't factor into moral decisions. This is a straw man argument. I agree with my opponent that economic matters shouldn't factor much into moral decisions. But what I argued was: "To spend these resources to forcefully preserve the lives of patients against their will is ridiculous. " Health resources are scarce… By denying those patients euthanasia, you are hurting two birds at the same time… the patient that you are denying his or her dignity to die, and the patient that you are not providing a hospital bed. How moral is this? 3. Prohibition targets innocents My opponent challenged my arguments with straw man arguments. He said for example that "in the Marie Fleming case, nobody innocent was ever prosecuted. " I agree, but that's not the point. Marie Fleming's partner didn't kill Marie because he was threatened with 14 years in prison. There are numerous reports were innocents were charged for assisted dying [2] [3]. Other points a. Pain My opponent argued that pain alone is not the main reason for euthanasia. I don't argue that pain is the central argument of my claims. The three main reasons shown by my opponent are: loss of autonomy (93%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (89%), and loss of dignity (73%) [4]. This doesn't change anything. My opponent also claims that "we shouldn't change the law out of pity. " This is a clever statement, but it's misleading. It's not out of pity that we give people human rights and the freedom of opinion. I personally, due to my religious beliefs, don't support euthanasia, assisted suicide or suicide in principal. It's not out of pity that I think euthanasia should be legalized. It's because I realize that I don't have any right to deny them their rights, even if I disagree with what they decide to do. This is not about pity. b. Equality (1) My opponent claims that "telling disabled people that doctors are legally allowed to kill them but not allowed to kill others clearly sends a message that they're expendable". This argument is invalid because disabled people have the ability to kill themselves (through assisted suicide which my opponent supports). Euthanasia only applies to those who don't have the means to end it on their own. (2) My opponent argues that "equal protection of the law only applies if human life is valuable in and of itself". I don't disagree. However it doesn't follow that the protection of the law means the suppression of their right to end their lives. c. Slippery Slope My opponent argues that I "didn't address the slippery slope argument". He also doesn't agree that it's a red herring fallacy for this debate, which in fact it is the case. He claims that it’s an empirical reality that non-voluntary euthanasia will follow by citing one example. This is a fallacy. This is similar to saying that "All people will become gamblers after going to the casino because that's exactly what happened to my friend". I'm sorry con – I don't accept this argument at all. I can discuss it on a separate debate. d. Hippocratic Oath I was disappointed that my opponent brought the ancient Hippocratic Oath and not the modern one [5]. That ancient oath, which no one follows, starts with this: "I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius the surgeon, likewise Hygeia and Panacea, and call all the gods and goddesses to witness, that I will observe and keep this underwritten oath, to the utmost of my power and judgment. " You couldn't possibly believe that modern doctors follow this. The modern oath (shown in my source [5]) doesn't contradict euthanasia. e. Refusal to commit suicide My opponent states "If a patient can commit suicide, but chooses instead to have a doctor euthanize him or her…etc" I don't disagree with my opponent! For those cases, they should be subscribed lethal pills (as Con also suggests). We are not in disagreement. f. Euthanasia discourages research? My opponent argues analytically (not with empirical evidence) that euthanasia will discourage research. Without empirical evidence, you can only speculate. I argue that there should be no impact because the rate of euthanatized people is too small for this to have an impact on the research. There's no reason to believe that all, or most, terminally ill people will choose euthanasia (I certainly hope not! ). I also find it interesting that my opponent places moral decision above all when he says "economic matters shouldn't factor into moral decisions". I could also argue that "research shouldn't factor into moral decisions! " But what disturbs me about the "analysis" is that you're denying people their rights out of fear of some hypothetical impacts. This is irresponsible. It's more responsible to study the impact first before justifying denying people their rights… not the other way around. g. Suicide My opponent argued that terminally ill people "have an option of refusing food and water as long as they can communicate their wishes". This is horrific! To die out of voluntary hunger and thirst is the better option is shocking. In my earlier round, I showed a lady who starved herself for 17 days before quitting! I can't accept this argument. h. Deadly drugs available to everyone My opponent argues that "we should make deadly drugs available to everyone". We've already agreed that assisted suicide is the better option for those who can kill themselves. However, for those who wish to die but have no means to do so, this is not a solution and we're back to square one. Remember… euthanasia is about the purpose (which is the wish to die), not the method (how to peacefully die). [1] . http://www.ethicalrights.com... [2] . http://www.righttodie.ca... [3] . http://www.ncregister.com... [4] . https://public.health.oregon.gov... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: THBT: Voluntary Euthanasia shall be legalized. Content: Thanks for your reply and it is good we are taking the debate a global level without referring to one country. It is also good that you have based it only on voluntary euthanasia in which the patient chooses to live or die. I didn't have an argument because I was waiting for yours as the proposition to tell me all you want because you only stated that a person whose life is depending on machine for instance should decide to live or not. My question to that is how will someone whose life is depending on machine make the right choice?? Is he or she in the right state of mind?? I don't think so. I oppose the legalization of euthanasia in any circumstance and believe that doctors should always look for a solution and not just abandon research because that is what is going to happen in the long run. I am supporting the status quo because right now it is not allowed and that is why you are proposing to legalize it. People might talk of freedom to choose and so what but it is not absolute. People might also think that people should be allowed to end their suffering but we have to know that there are always possibilities to solve things. My arguments to against this are: 1-killing is wrong: One objection to voluntary euthanasia is that it involves killing, and all killing is morally wrong. This principle may be based on religious views (e.g., the sixth commandment) or maintained on purely secular grounds. It also violates our duties to God if we are believers. It violates our duties to our families and our society too. 2-An incorrect diagnosis is possible or a new treatment might be discovered. There is always the possibility of an incorrect diagnosis or the discovery of a treatment that will permit either survival or recovery. This should be actually be the doctors' focus and never give up. They should do everything possible to save lives instead of being lazy by allowing euthanasia. 3- State of mind versus the right choice: i asked this question earlier and how do you expect someone in this critical situation to make a right choice for himself. he or she might be depending on drugs or machines and so on.... 4- It goes against the doctors' job: Physicians don't want to be nor should be involved in this kind of activity. The medical profession exists to provide important professional services, and neither wants to be nor should be involved in the kind of bureaucratic activity involved in responsibly administering voluntary euthanasia. it will also discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill.It will encourage patients to give up and significantly decrease their chances for recovery. i hope to hear from you and will have more arguments in my next too. thanks

Title: euthanasia should be banned Content: Just to clarify, i'm not questioning people's right to suicide. You life is your own and if you believe you are better off dead, that is ultimately your choice to make via free will. However, in the situation of euthanasia, several problem arise. The main problem is that you are now involving a third party, licensed professional to assist in your suicide. These people are trained to help and save lives. Most of them develop a passion for it and build a connection to their patients. This is viable to cause the problems i mentioned before, in that some doctors may end up becoming to eager to say die. and Some may slowly break down when they finally have to. Allowing someone their final moments may give people that time to reconcile and make peace with loved ones. Suffering is subjective... there are those whom may not realize that sticking around a little longer, may be worth while in terms of providing the people close to them time to properly grieve and say their peace. Many of us, religious or not, believe that life is sacred. We aren't like robots that you can just switch to "off" and it's not our place to say when someone's time is up. The religious sort may hold faith that perhaps even in the worst situations, there is still a chance that said loved one may pull through and make a tolerable recovery. There are the scientific individuals that hold a lot of faith in modern medicine and technology and know that there is always something else we might be able to do. (but choose not to in order to save, time, money, etc.) Again, this allows for a wide margin for slippery slope argument. When euthanasia exists, why bother having any reasonable care for those whom appear to be pretty much done? The value of life decreases, and who's to say that somewhere down the road we won't start euthanizing people with down syndrome or mild retardation? All people should have equal rights and opportunities to live but euthanasia may blurry that statement and shape us into being selective. Finally, it gives doctors too much power. It's a massive cop-out. What if the diagnosis is incorrect? what if the prognosis is incorrect? Many of us fail to realize that although doctors are trained professionals, they too are often wrong. What if you're particular doctor is simply unaware of non-fatal alternatives for the patient's particular case? Euthanasia is easier, quicker, and cheaper than putting in effort, so the likelihood of it becoming an abused solution seems probable. Yes, awaiting death is probably very traumatic. However; human life is valuable. The everyone always appreciates more time. And in many cases, there is more that can be done...

Title: Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia should be legal under the circumstances that the person requesting it have good reason (as determined by the person asked to perform the euthanasia), and they should be required to wait for a certain period of time so that can think over their decision in case they decide they do not want to go through with the procedure. I also think they should be given a psychological analysis to see if they have something that can be treated and if so attempt treating it before allowing them to ask for euthanasia.

Title: Open Debate Content: With such short rounds we'll need as much substance as possible in our arguments. To go with my opponent's preference, I will affirm that: Doctor assisted suicide is morally acceptable. My opponent can offer definitions if he wants, although I'm pretty sure we both know what the topic is about. Good luck.

Title: Euthanasia in a medical setting is moral Content: I think that euthanasia in a medical setting can be morally justified. I'll let you start the debate.

Title: Euthanasia Content: I believe that euthanasia should be made legal. And although there may be flaws if we are to legalise it, I believe that a lot of good will come from it. Take my grandma for instance: she lived a long thirty years Before she became ill, after this the illnesses kept pilling on and on till the point that she spent twenty years unable to move, in the same house and in constant agonising pain. Twenty years of torture, sure she may spend a brief amount of time with her love. But still she begged and the doctors could not supply. Many other people experience this and euthanasia will allow them, at their own will to decide whether they die and release themselves from their undying pain!

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: Thanks for the timely response. Now as for the definition. If we observe the medical definition of Physician Assisted Suicide we will find the following definition, "Somewhat of a hybrid between passive and active euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide (PAS), also known as voluntary passive euthanasia." (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) This means that it is voluntary Euthanasia, but just by a different name. In this debate I will be arguing that the legislation of this type of Euthanasia will lead to the legislation of other types of Euthanasia outside of Voluntary Euthanasia. Now I will warn that I will give my arguments, but may not get to all of my opponent's argument here and some of them may have to wait until the next round. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. ( Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.003.) A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. . Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, “If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia.” However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. (Medical end-of-life practices under the euthanasia law in Belgium. Bilsen J, Cohen J, Chambaere K, Pousset G, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Mortier F, Deliens L N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 10; 361(11):1119-21.) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. (The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L Health Policy. 2009 May; 90(2-3):181-7) The euthanasia’s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia’s have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?" From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain." From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases." From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" (http://www.all.org...) You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. (http://www.all.org...) Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness Consent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia’s have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round) Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. (http://www.rense.com...) They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. (http://www.nysrighttolife.org...) For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. (http://www.vatican.va...) Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, " “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” (http://www.bmj.com...) This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society.

Title: Should assisted suicide be legal Content: I believe that assisted suicide should be illegal because of the following reasons in my argument. Suicide is a horrible thing and should not exist so assisted suicide just helps a person do something horrible.

Title: Euthanasia Content: ), I also look forward to this debate as it is my first one on here! Good luck. I like your suggestions as well, yes. I think euthanasia should be legalized for many reasons. In fact, don't understand why euthanasia is a controversial debate in the first place. What is so immoral with ending someones life if they are in insufferable pain and who want to die? I would say it is more cruel to keep someone alive against their wishes. You put animals to sleep and put them out of their misery, why not human beings? If you want to look at euthanasia from a liberal point of view, people have an explicit right to die and I don't think that someone should take that option away from them. Most people agree with human rights e. g. right to life, right to liberty and life to a fair trial etc. Why not right to die? Also, this could lead us to another point, we shouldn't even need a separate right allowing us to die as I think 'right to liberty' gives us the right to euthanasia, and euthanasia being illegal is in a sense, prevents our right to liberty. You can also look at euthanasia on an emotional level. If you allow people the right to die it can give the family of the deceased some comfort that they did not suffer anymore than they needed to, and that they were in the comfort of their family, you would also be able to say a final goodbye to your loved ones. Euthanasia also allows the deceased to retain their dignity, so they don't have to be seen helpless, suffering and in chronic pain. I think one of the most important points when fighting for euthanasia is why should someone be kept alive, especially when they know they do not want to live. A perfect example of this is the case of Tony Nicklisnson: . http://www.bbc.co.uk... He had to starve himself in the end has his appeal was rejected and he could not end his life any other way without the help of his family (active euthanasia), which is murder or manslaughter. In fact, Britons have had to go over to Switzerland to have the legal right to die. One important sentence in the article is "For those who traveled with them, there was always the fear of prosecution but, to date, no-one who accompanied any of the 182 Britons has been prosecuted. " Although no one has actually been prosecuted, there has always been a fear. Which I think is bad enough! . http://www.bbc.co.uk... To look at the argument from a philosophical point of view, is death actually a bad thing? In some cases people prefer death over life, that's why people commit suicide. Why should death be regarded as such a bad thing? If you are going to die anyway, an example of this could be a cancer patient who has discovered the cancer in too late a stage to act on it, and who is going to die anyway. Euthanasia isn't the act of killing someone healthy, it is the act of giving someone a dignified end to their life, who is going die anyway.

Title: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering Content: This debate was created due to a discussion in the forums which you can view here: . http://www.debate.org...Resolution: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering from a terminal illness== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i. e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss == Definitions ==Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Legalized is to make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law (1). Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and in formed decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind. Suffering is when you are in unbearable pain. Terminally ill is when a person who is sick is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life in a few months or years (2). Sources (1) . https://www.google.co.uk...(2) . https://www.google.co.uk...

Title: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering Content: Resolution: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering from a terminal illness== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i. e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss == Definitions ==Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Legalized is to make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law (1). Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and in formed decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind. Suffering is when you are in unbearable pain. Terminally ill is when a person who is sick is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life in a few months or years (2). Sources(1) . https://www.google.co.uk...(2) . https://www.google.co.uk...

Title: Semi Finals: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the suffering Content: R1: Swiss Model Of Assisted Suicide My quote was to show that people have a right to die. It could have been about anywhere in the world - I wasn’t arguing about that specific place. You, however, have argued specifically off a point that has no impact upon the resolution. I extend out my rebuttal because it has not been counter - refuted. R2: Oregon USA My opponent has completely avoided my argument here and hasn’t even responded to the quote that I provided. They have asked where I have got the quote from when it is clearly labelled that I got the quote from my 2nd source which is directly off the official website regarding the right to die. It doesn’t matter if they are chipping away at the legislation or not. My point was that there have been no cases of abuse. The results have been successful and the restrictions in place have been working. If they are removing the legislation then I am sad to hear this however I do not see what that had to do with my point. I extend out this argument.R3: Montana Judiciary I will quote from my opponent’s source (that is actually bias in my favour, not his): “The Montana constitutional rights of individual privacy and human dignity, taken together, encompass the right of a competent terminally patient to die with dignity. That is to say, the patient may use the assistance of his physician to obtain a prescription for a lethal dose of medication that the patient may take on his own if and when he decides to terminate his life. The patient=s right to die with dignity includes protection of the patient=s physician from liability under the State=s homicide statutes. The Court recognizes compelling State interests in protecting patients and their loved ones from abuses, in protecting life in general, and in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession. However, those interests can be protected while preserving a patient=s right to die with dignity” This is quoted from the conclusion of my opponent’s source. My opponent may believe that the article that he was referring to could be used to benefit his case however if he had read the whole article he would have realized that the source did come to the conclusion that assisted suicide was good not bad, as my opponent may have originally thought.R4: Conclusion I don’t usually make rebuttals to conclusions however I think that this rebuttal is necessary because my opponent has made many mistakes and accusations. My opponent begins by stating: “Nobody is leaving people to die in agony and it would be disingenuous to paint this picture of our options here.” My opponent states that they agreed to the resolution however, if they read the full resolution provided in R1, they would realize that we are only legalizing assisted suicide for the terminally ill, suffering and those that have had the correct mental checks. Therefore, the patient must be suffering and in pain. My opponent should be arguing that assisted suicide is not okay for these people, again this relates back to my argument regarding my opponent’s semantics. This point is left uncontested by my opponent. My opponent continues, “As you can see from the above depiction from Montana,” Firstly, the Montana description is invalid because he has been quoting and referring to a source that actually agrees that assisted suicide is preferable and is should be used for the terminally ill and suffering (as demonstrated by my quote). My opponent attempt to prove that euthanasia is a greater alternative by saying: “Wouldn't Euthanasia be more humane where at least they could inject a quadriplegic cancer sufferer with this poison rather than watch them attempt to sip from a 'passed cup'.” The problem that you have with euthanasia that you don’t get with assisted suicide is that in euthanasia transforms the roles of doctors into killers. With assisted suicide, the person kills themselves and is ultimately keeping the role of the doctors as to what it is supposed to be (1).Conclusion To conclude I believe that I have won this debate, my opponent has run a semantics argument that is clearly against the rules. This has not been contested with by my opponent and therefore it still stands. Since no new arguments are allowed in the final round a response to this point is also against the rules so this argument is extended. My opponent has also attempted to alter the resolution and the burden of proof throughout the debate which was accepted to in R1 therefore by arguing against it they are also breaking the rules. All of my argument are extended since none of them have been directly contested with. I clearly have clearly provided rebuttals that directly refute every point provided by my opponent and I have neatly organised them into contention headings in order for it to be easier to respond to by voters. All my contentions are extended and they cannot be contested within the final round. I thank my opponent for an enjoyable debate and I strongly urge voters to vote Pro!Sources(1) https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk...

Title: Semi Finals: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the suffering Content: Resolution: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering from a terminal illness== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss == Definitions ==Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Legalized is to make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law (1).Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and in formed decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind. Suffering is when you are in unbearable pain. Terminally ill is when a person who is sick is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life in a few months or years (2).This is for the Beginner's tournament semi finals and I wish zeromeansnothing the best of luck in this debate.Sources(1) https://www.google.co.uk...(2) https://www.google.co.uk...;

Title: Legalization of Euthanasia Content: To start out I am not a good debater but I just had this idea and want to see both sides of the argument. Euthanasia should be legalized in the United States. Euthanasia would help the US and its citizens in many ways. As defined by Merriam-Webster Euthanasia- the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy: 1. People who live in great pain and suffering would have a way to get out of their pain and misery and die with dignity. Instead of becoming vegetables in their old age and wearing adult diapers or suffering throught a terrible disease they could have a way out. 2. I don't remember where I got this fact but I believe about 60% of medicare is spent in the last 2 weeks of a patients life. With Euthanasia hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars could be saved and spent on things such as education or simply reducing the multi trillion dollar deficit. Euthanasia could be set up rather easily. There could be government run centers where people of sane mind could come and provide in writing and in video something showing they wanted to die.