To be decided in this debate

My opponent agrees that the current, and possibly more in the future, safeguards and regulations for euthanasia help prevent abuse and accidents. Unfortunately, my opponent takes a major part of his argument attacking technicalities and the procedures of euthanasia. He, however, is missing the point of the debate. Is euthanasia FUNDAMENTALLY MORAL? ===== Option for palliative care ===== The article doesn't present euthanasia in the brightest light, but only in the context of Oregon's protocol. You will notices that they STILL support euthanasia, but only are giving other options for which Oregon can improve on. My opponent's argument here rests on the fact that there are some unqualified and not enough "hands-on" physicians to meet the psychological requirements of patients deciding euthanasia. This, at most, can be seen to be just a problem concerning faculty stuff, of who to accept and what requirements they need to go through. ===== Ensuring the voluntarily of the request ===== Yes, certain burdens such as financial cost on partners take a toll. While I concede the point that this can affect the euthanasia process, I deny it's moral consequence. Suppose a person was at home, and he also financially dependent on his spouse. If he decides to kill himself, then he is in ALL his right to. Suicide may be painful for others (and some may say it's selfish), but ultimately it's the person's choice. Second, the response Kate got from her family is not the hospital nor euthanasia's fault. A family who asks when she will off herself probably sent the wrong message (or they're just plain evil). The patient's duty to die may be influenced by mixed messages, but it is in no way immoral. Suicide happens everyday due to many causes - if we were to catch someone before they kill themselves they should not be punished. Same with euthanasia. It may seem like an emotional tragedy, but it is not a moral outrage. >>>I think it has a huge relevance as to whether euthanasia is ethically acceptable. It seems crazy to end pain by causing pain. If my opponent thinks deliberately causing pain has no moral repercussions he is sadly mistaken. <<< As technology progresses, and more regulations are in existence, the pain aspect will go away. >>>This doesn't sound very much to me like the third-world, technologically lacking ancient society my opponent is hinting at. <<< Yes, but is the hospital as facilitated or "good" as American hospitals? Probably not, but let's say it is. Even so, my contention stands. Technology will improve and eventually the painful aspects will go away. >>>Then my opponent says the slippery slope problem is a fallacy. However it is already happening in Belgium. Belgium now sells over the counter "Euthanasia packs" to anyone who wants them. Before this happened Belgium had nearly the exact same set of laws that Oregon had. <<< No, it's not to everyone. These euthanasia packs are sold only to physicians[1. ===== Religious reasons ===== >>>Generally, Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Jews all consider euthanasia as a grave sin. This would be a huge moral hurdle to euthanasia. <<< Just because people believe it's immoral doesn't make it so. Most Christians believe Gay Marriage is a grave sin, so is it ethically immoral then? ===== Woman with psychological problems ===== If she had control of herself, she would've killed herself even faster (gun to the head, wrist slash, etc. ). This was only a failure in technology to save her, nothing ethically immoral. ===== Conclusion ===== What my opponent doesn't seem to grasp is that the majority of his argument is centered on the current laws, regulations, and technology for euthanasia. The ethical aspect will eventually supersede this. The pain aspect - which my opponent uses - will soon be gone with increasing technology. New regulations can help prevent third-party influence, and technology can help people recover with psychological or physical pain. However, suicide is left up to the person. He or she has the HIGHEST priority when concerning rights over their body. Thus, my opponent's arguments have been defeated and you should like freaking vote for PRO. ---References--- 1. . http://findarticles.com...