Euthanasia

MoonGazer, yes, this has been a very civil, very god discussion; I have enjoyed it immensely. Now, I will address the main points of contention within this debate, and then I shall provide a crystallization of the round focusing on why a Con ballot is in order. Thank you! BURDENS We agreed that the term "euthanasia" "encompassed all of the various sub-categories of it." Because the topic reads: "Euthanasia should be legalized in the UK," we are talking about euthanasia as a whole. This, as my earlier analysis implied, indicates that a vote for Pro is a vote for legalizing all forms of euthanasia. You should accept my interpretation of the burdens not only because it is logical given the agreed upon definitions, but also because my Round One Observation was dropped entirely. Therefore, Pro is making a new argument in the final round regarding this, and we agreed that new arguments in the final round were prohibited. The crux of this point is that a vote for Pro is a vote for involuntary euthanasia, meaning that a vote for Pro, by the Pro"s own concession, is a vote for the legalization of murder. This is a clear reason to vote con. VAGUENESS I asserted that there is no fair way to determine how much pain, or what type of pain, was enough to justify death. Without establishing some sort of bright line for when euthanasia is acceptable, we cannot know whether euthanasia is being used appropriately. This is a reason to reject the legalization of euthanasia, because there is not legal or just means of deciding just when and how it should be used. It would be a completely arbitrary power. My arthritis example was merely meant to illustrate this"there is a woman I know who is completely immobile (and would need assistance to die) and in constant, but not unbearable, pain due to her condition. She is depressed and has asked to die. Is that sufficient to euthanize someone, or must they actually be at death"s door or in a living hell? As I pointed out earlier, "if I have chronic back pain or fibromyalgia or some other condition that will leave me in pain the rest of my life, I can be euthanized? That seems to be a very risky position to take, especially since many conditions that cause long-term of life-long suffering are not fatal." Many people can still live worthwhile lives with these types of conditions. So, what level of "constant pain" justifies killing someone? I think we must be absolutely sure about the answers to these questions before we take such an irrevocable step as to take a life. Pro has been unable to successfully answer these questions. In fact, the Pro"s answers to those questions were new arguments made in the final round. New arguments were prohibited in Round Four. This is one reason to reject those arguments immediately. But, if you don"t accept that, the second reason is that the Pro"s answer itself is flaw. The Pro states euthanasia should be permitted if (1) you"re in constant pain, and (2) you repeatedly ask to die. I offered analysis illustrating how pain medications could be used to moderate pain (a point dropped by Pro), and how people nearing death or who are depressed are not in their right mind, and we should not construe their pleas for death as adequate consent. DIGNTIY The Con side actual respects human dignity better. The Pro challenges me to show how, but then utterly fails to address, and in fact whole drops, my warrants as to why the Con better respects human dignity. I will restate my dropped warrants, to reaffirm how the Con actually respects human dignity more. Pro argues that we should euthanize a "patient less likely to reawaken in order to help someone more likely to do so." I countered with the following scenario: "Let's say Person A has a 3% chance of reawakening, while Person B has a 90% chance of so doing. Euthanizing Person A would be treating them as a means to an end, the end being Person B's better care. At that point, we stop seeing Person A as a human deserving of respect and dignity, but more so as a burden preventing Person B's care. Person A becomes nothing more than a tool to help out Person B. Central to your argument is the idea that euthanasia accords dying people dignity; yet, in the very scenario you posit, Person A is dehumanized, reduced to little more than an encumbrance on Person B's treatment. This seems to fly in the face of human dignity. Furthermore, Pro fails to fully address my notion that non-voluntary euthanasia enables the exploitation of the comatose individual [they could be killed out of greed or spite], which also runs contrary to morality and human dignity." PAIN Pro makes additional new (and therefore illicit) arguments regarding medication in the final speech. Pro states that people don"t want to be on medication in their final moments, and that medications often fail as death approaches. This argument can be rejected out of hand because it is new. But, if you don"t reject it for that reason, here is another: (1) euthanasia is not solely for people on their deathbeds, which is all this analysis address, (2) I would think people would rather have some relief on medications than be in pain, (3) even if they chose do be in pain, that is no justification for euthanasia because there pain could easily be relieved (euthanasia is a "last resort," so as long as the medicines work, it cannot be permitted), and (4) Pro gives no warrant for the assertion that pain medications will invariably fails as death approaches. GOVERNMENT, MURDER, RIGHTS, AND CONSENT Pro states that I failed to reply to the "regulation" argument. I did, indeed, reply to this point. I stated that even if regulation were possible, it could not prevent all the harmful possible outcomes. When we are talking about directly taking someone"s life, I think regulation is an inadequate and incomplete protection; legalizing euthanasia is too great a risk. Furthermore, under the initial burden established in the round, legalizing euthanasia would pretty much legalize murder. How would we even proceed to regulate murder? I also noted, that consent to die will never be informed, and thus, valid. Pro never addresses this. I stated: "how can any consent to euthanasia really be informed, especially when you are unaware of the circumstances that may precipitate a need for it? For instance, what if I only wished to be euthanized if it can be show I am in severe pain, but not if I'm just comatose? What then? Who's to make the call as to whether I'm in "severe pain," enough that I would've wanted to die? Can anyone accurately predict or take into account all the variables that could come into play?" So, when Pro asks "what if they ask to die, how is it murder?" The answer is because they were never able to give valid consent. Pro drops this point in round four. I made three arguments against the "right to die." (1) That a Government"s chief duty was to ensure a right to life (how could it effectively do that if it has to allow people to die); (2) That a right to die sets us on a slippery slope that could legalize murder (so, even if you don"t buy my argument about burdens, here is another way euthanasia could legalize murder); (3) That life is too valuable to allow a right to die. Pro"s only rebuttal to my three arguments is to say, "What's the point in living if you have no rights? Why shouldn't death be a right to people?" This statement neither address the warrants I provided in my earlier remarks, nor does it actually respond to any of the points individually. Therefore, my points are, in essence, dropped, and can be extended. OTHER ISSUES AND DROPS Pro"s argument regarding medical advances is a new point, and should be discounted because of this. Even so, not all medical advances are years off. Furthermore, my argument that people often experience miracle cures is dropped. This means that there is always a chance people could live full and happy lives. As long as that possibility exists, euthanasia is wrong. Pro drops my point that "For every case the Pro cites, I could cite other miracle cures or instances where euthanasia was a bad option. Instead, we should look to"the likely and broader impacts of the policy of legalizing euthanasia, rather than putting forth specific cases as evidence." Therefore, we should analyze what would happen in general, that what might happen in specific cases. PRO"s VOTING ISSUES Pro says it offers more reasons to vote for Pro than Con does for Con. More does not mean better. Furthermore, Pro"s voting issues are strung out to appear to be more than what they are. For example, voters 1, 7, and 8 are all about the right to die. Voters, 2 and 10 are identical. 11 and 14 are the same. So, really, Pro only has 7 voting issues. On top of that, voters 3 and 8 contradict (voter 8 also seems to be new, as we never discussed noninterference), because Pro says state should regulate it, but then stay out of it. Finally, Pro accuses me of dropping many of these points; however, a review of these and my previous remarks will show I did not. REASONS TO VOTE CON (1) The Pro case would legalize murder in one of two ways, but primarily, by legalizing involuntary euthanasia. This is a prima facie reason to vote Con. (2) There is no means of determining when euthanasia is appropriate"and if we can determine when it is permissible to use, we shouldn"t use it because there would be a risk that we would be illegally or unjustly ending a life. It is the Governments responsibility to uphold life (even the Pro agrees with this to an extent) and therefore, it should not legalize euthanasia if it cannot fairly, and with certainty, define a threshold for when it may be used. (3) Government has a duty to uphold life. Granting a right to die severely compromises the government"s ability to fulfill this obligation. This was largely dropped by Pro. (4) Valid consent is unobtainable. This was largely dropped by Pro. (7) The existence of miracle cures (which was dropped) means that every person has chance at recovery. As long as such a chance exists, people are never without hope, and can therefore, not justifiably be euthanized. There are also means of controlling a reducing pain that mitigate many of the Pro"s core assertions. (5) Pro makes an insane amount of new arguments, and predicates several of the key issues in the round on these new statements. New arguments were prohibited in round four. Therefore, much of the Pro"s final speech, and many of the Pro"s points that relied on these new statements, can be ignored. (6) Con better respects human dignity. All of my arguments for this were dropped by Pro. Thus, I thank MoonGazer for a nice debate, and I urge a Con ballot.