Voluntary Euthanasia

Thanks, Varrack! Onto my case.OBSERVATIONSThese are CONCEDED.ARGUMENTSC1. Human DignitySC1/2. What is HD/Respecting Autonomy(a) Big Brother is Watching You. Using Con's line of reasoning, you could make a case that humans must be controlled constantly, in order to ensure that they never make "bad" choices. This could then justify a kind of Orwellian society of oppression and intimidation. Surely, this isn't something that Con would truly advocate for, yet his statement that "it's not ethical to blindly trust people to make the most moral decisions" would seem to form the very basis for a 1984-like society.(b) People should be free to make the wrong decisions to have meaningful choice. If people cannot choose to be immoral, they cannot meaningfully choose to be moral either. For example, suppose that person A is given the following choice: "steal some money, or donate to charity," and that person B is confronted with this choice: "donate to charity." Person A, by choosing the moral option, has meaningfully rejected immorality. They had a choice to do the wrong thing, and walked away. Person B on the other hand, had no choice but to act morally whether he or she wanted to or not, and so they did not have a meaningful choice. In fact, B had no choice at all. Con says it is not ethical to trust people to make the right decisions, but when we deny them the opportunity to make the wrong decisions, we deny them choice, and reduce them to the level of animals or robots unable to think for themselves. That is dehumanizing and fails to treat people as agents with dignity, but rather as kinds of automatons to be programmed and managed.(c) People should be free to make the wrong decisions to grow as individuals. If we can never make the wrong choices, morally-speaking, then we can never feel guilt or remorse, which are key character-building emotions. We only appreciate the importance of ethics and morality because we have felt the pain of being wronged and the guilt of doing wrong to others. These negative emotions highlight the value of the positive ones, and reinforce our desire to be moral people. Therefore, in a world where people had no chance to choose to do wrong, they would also never have a chance to understand why acting morally was good. The whole reason that people have moral worth is that we are capable of appreciating the moral dimension, but by removing free choice, you deny people the ability to do that. Just like a horse cannot understand why morality is good, so too would people be reduced to that level.(d) Freedom is not a free pass. If I choose to do something wrong I must face the legal and ethical consequences of that action. Freedom is not allowing people to do whatever they want without penalty; it is not restricting people from choosing to act in a particular way in the first place. And even that has limits. Since autonomy has such value, the only restriction on autonomous actions is that they cannot infringe on the autonomy of others. This is the system that best maximizes autonomy. In the child example, the child doesn't have full autonomy, which is why his parents are his custodians. So, the child shouldn't be able to run out into the street, but this doesn't actually clash with my claim that most grown adults, through living wills or other means of consent, can autonomously acquiesce to euthanasia. Remember, the resolution is specific to adults. And, children are a special case: they are capable, unlike bugs, cows, and tables, of having choice sometime in the future, which makes them worthy of unique protection and care, but, in their childlike state, they are not any different from those things. So, yes, they are at that level, but they should be protected because of the value placed on autonomy.The conclusion we can draw thus far is that you cannot limit other's freedom, though you can choose to limit your own, since only you can accept the consequences of your own actions. These arguments also affirm the role of free choice in grounding the concept of human dignity.(e) Con then regurgitates his arguments about patients being coerced. This is, at the moment, only a theoretical harm. Con offers no statistics or evidence that reliably describes how often this kind of coercion occurs. If only .0001% of patients face this kind of situation, then the benefits to human dignity may outweigh the harms. Moreover, regulator practices can be used to curb this kind of coercive interaction.SC3. SufferingI am not really sure where the eugenics tangent fits into the debate, but the general thrust of Con's assertions is that pain is natural and useful, and so we should not seek to eliminate it.(a) Some suffering is bad. Con claims that not all pain is a bad thing, and I can agree with that. But "unnecessary" suffering is bad. Unless Con is willing to say that every single instance of suffering that has ever occurred is good, we can say that there is a kind of suffering that is unacceptable. Torture is probably the clearest example of this type of suffering; it is wanton. The type of pain that people in end-stage care are going through is often pointless--it is, essentially, a form of torture. People suffer oftentimes without learning anything, and with increasing hopelessness, discomfort, and desperation. Moreover, there is no point in resisting, since death is imminent. Prolonging the suffering only makes the ordeal more intolerable. When I suffer in training to climb a mountain, I am doing it because I have a goal in mind, but the suffering of terminal illness is forced upon people, it is not in pursuit of some goal.(b) Con never disagrees that suffering oftentimes limits choice. This is DROPPED. Extend it.(c) Con's arguments could again be taken to their logical conclusion: suffering is really useful, so we should deliberately make more of it. If suffering "contains value because it provides the opportunity to grow in wisdom, character, and compassion," then maybe we should deliberately seek to make people suffer more. May be I should go around schoolyards beating up small children, or maybe I should pummel my friends to within an inch of their life. After all, I will be helping them develop their character, right? Con talks about the dangers of a slippery slope, yet his arguments really do epitomize that problem more than mine do.(d) Regarding the easel example, this is a sort of nod to my earlier mention of the canvas and the painting. I will simply cross-apply that example here. While the canvas may be a prerequisite to the painting, that does not make the canvas more valuable than the painting. The canvas may even have some worth, but again, in terms of magnitude, the painting outweighs. I may pay $10 for the canvas, but $100 for the painting. So, even if the canvas (or the easel) has some worth or utility, it is only instrumental value. I do not value the canvas or the easel for itself, but I do value the painting for itself. The painting is the end, the easel and canvas are the tools. In that sense, Con's own example works against him, since he has spent this whole debate trying to prove that the canvas itself was the end. C2. PracticalityCon claims I make a bare assertion fallacy which "an easily be proved false if one can find a terminally ill patient that has never attempted to take their own life." But, Con only says that because he misunderstands my argument. I am not saying that EVERY patient will attempt suicide; I am saying that some patients, in an effort to spare themselves the pain, will do so. In England alone, more than 300 terminally ill people commit suicide, and more people have likely tried. [1]Con claims that euthanasia won't make death less painful, and claims I have no warrant for this. Voluntary euthanasia is carried out by doctors and people trained to do so. Rather than having an amateur attempt to end their own life, professional help will logically increase the likelihood of success and painlessness, esp. when using state-approved methods. May suicide victims may use painful methods, such as slashing wrists, out of desperation. But that desperation can be lessened with voluntary euthanasia.Con DROPS the link between my claims here; i.e., he never disputes that IF suicide is an inevitability AND euthanasia reduces the chances of pain, that the conclusion I drew is accurate.C3. Ancillary BenefitsSC1. Psychological ReassuranceI am not talking so much about reassuring families (though that can happen) as I am reassuring victims. After all, the patients are undergoing physical AND psychological pain, whereas the families are only undergoing the latter.SC2. Religious FreedomProhibiting euthanasia does disallow Unitarians their religious rights, as I noted earlier. Giving people a choice whether or not to euthanize maximizes religious freedom by allowing people of all religions (both pro and con on euthanasia) to make a decision in accordance with the faith. Con NEVER DISPUTES that religious freedom is important to the discussion on euthanasia.SC3. Medical ResourcesPro DROPS my arguments that euthanasia actually reduces debt and increases resources for more needy patients. Certainly, physicians should respect life, but I would argue that physicians respect life by not making people suffer and by procuring resources necessary to save people who are savable. Ultimately, the call to do no harm is one solely of interpretation.SC4. LegalityAs I said earlier: "Making the procedure above-the-board incentivizes doctors...to actually discuss it with their patients...rather than to act unilaterally...It's a similar principle to pot legalization--by making it a legitimate enterprise, people are more likely to report abuses and cooperate with government oversight professionals." So, my study is backed by logic. Con DROPPED my logic. At the very least, 1 study cancels out 1 study.SOURCEhttp://tinyurl.com...Over to Con...