Euthanasia COOLDUDEBRO's 20th DEBATE!

I thank con for challenging me to this debate. I am arguing that euthanasia is O.K in practice. I am not arguing for the legalization of it. Right off the bat, scenarios 1 and 2 are not euthanasia that I am arguing. Nowhere in the acceptance round did my opposition say that this was only for humans, yet he batted away the animal request. Please consider this in the conduct section of the voting.--Rebuttal 1a: Scenario 1 and 2-- In my opponent's first scenario, he makes something that is obviously not euthanasia. It is not even close to euthanasia by definition. Euthanasia means you die painlessly, very, very close to death, and give someone else permission to kill you. Neither of these three things are apparent at all in the given scenario.Even if this was euthanasia, the federal court and local policemen are not dumb. People, while clearing the body, would EASILY see the strangle marks that Jennifer gave her, and launch an investigation that would label Jennifer the killer. Do your REALLY thing the court would let her off scott-free just by saying the words "it was euthanasia?" Also, the court would realize it was not euthanasia by definition becuase the mother-in-law did not die painlessly.Furthermore, this is involuntary euthanasia (not even euthanasia at ALL), which I am not advocating for. Plus, the mother may not be close to death, as you can live with one lung (1).Now, we face the same problem with scenario 2. It is not euthanasia, as cancer is "not on verge of death." The patient is also not in extreme pain. It takes years and years of suffering for cancer to become suicidal. One would not want to commit suicide RIGHT when they found out they had possibly (and likely) treatable cancer...Furthermore, this scenario is (I'm sorry for this) DOWNRIGHT STUPID. A doctor would not kill a patient when he is not even sure that the patient has cancer, without permission from family, without looking further into his life, and without notifying anyone else. A certified doctor would easily know what else to do before euthanasia in this situation.And, come on... Are you saying a certified doctor went to jail when a probable teenage girl didn't? The teenage girl had many facts stacked up against her that would lead to people seeing that it was not euthanasia, while the doctor has evidence, and likely some eyewitnesses that it was euthanasia. He would not have been arrested....Common? Are you kidding me? How common is it that a certified doctor that is not sure of a disease kills the patient without anyone else's permission (besides the patient) that he hasn't looked in to? If anything, it is one in a million billion.Also, you said that further tests reveal he would not have HIV. However, you stated he has cancer. He could easily still have cancer. Having HIV doesn't mean you have cancer... voters, please consider this in the spelling and grammar section of the voting (if it was a typo). Thank you.--Rebuttal 2a: Scenario 3--This scenario is the closest thing to euthanasia (out of the other two scenarios) but it is still easy to poke holes in it. Yolanda is not in hopeless scenario, and is not on the verge of death, so it is not euthanasia by definition or in practice.Now, to poke holes in the scenario. What are the chances that the doctor walks in the door about two minutes after Yolanda was killed, after the two mother and daughter had spent HOURS of talking?! What are the chances that Yolanda's daughter (we'll just call her Emma) finds a piece of equipment that she can use? Wouldn't Emma go to a DOCTOR before committing euthanasia? With all of the commotion in the hospital, don't you think that at least SOMEONE would've checked on them?To say this is common is just absurd, as pointed out above. After showing that all three scenarios were invalid to this argument, I (finally) can start my arguments.--Argument 1a--I'm pretty tired, so excuse me if this argument is shorter than you wished for.So, my first argument is that euthanasia actually does not shorten life drastically, like murder. Euthanasia is usually performed days or even hours away from certain death. In fact, an astonishing 86% of the time, this is the case (2). Is it better to live in severe pain or die painlessly? I believe it is better to die painlessly.If a person wants out of their life due to severe pain and will die within a month's worth anyway, who are we to deny the will of this person? A person's life is a person's life, and only that person can make decisions. The decision that is made by this person is to tell someone to "pull the plug" or kill them. Once again, why should we morally deny that if a person is in a great deal of pain?Now, I would like to dig deep into your mind with this argument. Euthanasia, in correct practice, can actually improve life. First, it improves life as an average. Committing euthanasia means one less suffering person in this society. And Lord knows we have too many suffering people in our society today.Also, it actually can eliminate fear. If you know how you are going to die and are in control of it, you can put a perfect ending to a perfect life. For example, an author had this to say (3):“As I have said, I would like to die peacefully with Thomas Tallis on my iPod before the disease takes me over and I hope that will not be for quite some time to come, because if I knew that I could die at any time I wanted, then suddenly every day would be as precious as a million pounds. If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice.” -Terry Pratchett on EuthanasiaIn conclusion of this argument, euthanasia can not only improve the quality of life (shown by Terry Pratchett) but also eliminate fear. It can also put suffering people out of their misery.Next, I would like to point out that Euthanasia is actually a better alternative than a normal death. Death is usually slow and painful, while euthanasia is fast and painless. If a person is in so much pain and only has a week left to live, why not commit euthanasia so they can die peacefully and without even more pain? Why should they have to live another WEEK of hell before finally dying while very sick?Now, for my final argument, I would like to take in that Euthanasia is not only morally acceptable- it is LEGALLY acceptable. The Hippocratic Oath (4) that doctors take actually supports euthanasia. The famous line in there is "do no harm." An underlying way, and a most likely correct way, this means "do not keep one on life when death is preferable." Since the illness and pain is HARMING the body, it would be best to commit death, which is actually not harmful. Not as harmful as agony from your body slowly destroying itself.I thank my opponent for his time and hand over this argument to con. Thank you, the voter, for reading. Please, have a nice day!(1) http://www.foxnews.com...(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(3) http://www.theguardian.com...(4) http://guides.library.jhu.edu...