Euthanasia

Thank you again for challenging me to this debate; it has been nice debating you. I will refute all of my opponent's points, then step back and look at this debate as a whole. Refutations to his refutations: 1) "I see what you're getting at, but the difference between suicide and euthanasia is that someone who wants to be Euthanized is going through the most painful disease, they have no choice, it's either die now painlessly, or die later painfully. A suicidal person asking to be euthanized is wrong because they might rethink their life the next day, but a person with an incurable illness cannot rethink their life the next day. That is my point here." I am not saying that suicide IS euthanasia. I am saying that suicide has the same concept as euthanasia. A suicidal person cannot rethink their life the next day if they commit suicide and decide to end it at that minute; neither can a person who chooses euthanasia even when they're not a hundred percent sure that they want to leave early. 2) "I fail to see how the Euopean Declaration of Independence contradicts me." This is how you contradicted yourself; You stated something about the European Declaration of Independence in your first speech. I stated something about the American Declaration of Independence in my first speech. Then, you state something about how we are debating euthanasia as a whole and not about America. Therefore, since you brought up the point that we should legalize euthanasia due to the European Declaration and then later say that we should disregard the United States, this means that we should disregard Europe in this debate, too. That clears out your point entirely. 3) "You keep on bringing up suicidal people when the debate is about strictly people with incurable, painful diseases!" According to the definition that you have provided of an incurable disease, and according to the definition that I have provided for illness, depression is technically an incurable disease. The Merriam Webster Dictionary states that the definition of a cure is a "complete or permanent solution to remedy." When you are depressed, you only receive medication to help balance out the chemicals in your brain to keep your mood happy. Where's the proof, you ask? If you get off of this medication, your mood drops down. It is not a complete or permanent solution. Depression is painful, mentally and physically. 4a) "palliative care allows a patient to stop feeling the pain and feel more comfortable or less scared. Palliative care is NEVER a procedure intended to end a patient's life, rather to make it more peaceful." I agree with this point, but why would you want to live the short rest of your life drugged up? Wouldn't you want to say your last goodbyes then exit from your painful world? If I was in that position I wouldn't have liked to be drugged, then die, I would like to know that I'm my sane old self when I die, not on a drug high." Would you want to end your life early in pain, or live out your full potential painlessly to say goodbye? Nobody ever said that you would be on a drug high – where is your evidence? According to PBR, a widely-known medical book, the kind of drugs given to a patient in palliative care does not involve side effects that ruin your brain or send you into a mental drug high. Now, I would like to stop back and look at this debate as a whole. The definitions brought up by Rockylightning: Euthanasia: "Good death" painless death that is sometimes is categorized as assisted suicide. Includes Passive and Active forms Incurable Disease: A disease that has no known successful cure. Painful disease: A disease that inflicts extreme amounts of pain. I have followed these definitions successfully. My main points were: 1) There is an alternative to euthanasia in terms of its purpose. 2) It contradicts the meaning of the job of a doctor. 3) Euthanasia is a form of suicide in every way. 4) [This point was contradicted by my opponent himself] Which points have my opponent successfully refuted? None of them. I stated a perfectly great alternative and have defended it at the fullest extent, while he gave absolutely no evidence against it. This point is ours. I stated a major point that it contradicts the meaning of a doctor's job, and he has not even touched up at all on this point, showing no effort. My third major point was that euthanasia IS suicide and the only response my opponent has is that it is not suicide. My opponent has brought up a point over evidence from the European Declaration of Independence, has claimed it as relevant to this debate, and then has stated that the Declaration of Independence of America is not relevant. This is completely ridiculous, and therefore the con side has won this point. The first speech was a brutal war of copying and pasting, with the excuse of "having no time to debate." I ask Rockylightning that if he every debates me again that he thinks about his time management and puts more thought into his debate before challenging me. I don't find debates as enjoyable when I debate a computer, and I don't think you would either. For the reasons that I have successfully refuted all of the Pro side's points, my sources are reliable, my speeches were not copied and pasted, and he has not touched up on over one third of mine, the Con side clearly has won this debate. Thank you again. My sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.newint.org... [3] The United States Declaration of Independence [4] History [5] PBR (America's Most Trusted Medical Guidebook) [6] http://www.dictionary.reference.com...