Tim's debate tournament: Euthanasia

I also what to thank everyone who took the time to read this debate and judge it, for your role is vital in these debates. I would like to start this debate by stating that my opponent admitted to only having one contention. This means that on a point by point basis, I have won this debate already, for I have more points that are left standing then he does. This is because my points refute his point of personal autonomy to an extent, for if a doctor realizes that a patient is under the strain of depression, they would NEVER allow for euthanasia to be administered to that patient, no matter what my opponent states about personal autonomy. Saving a human life is the primary goal of physicians, and they deal with the depressed no different. So already, I have more points left then my opponent. But I will go into great detail in defending my own and attacking further my opponents point. Also, my opponent dropped trying to argue that depression isn't found in almost all patients requesting euthanasia, admitting his was wrong. If he was wrong about one thing, he is likely to be wrong about another. My opponent suggests that everyone has every right to their body, so long as they don't infringe on others rights. I disproved his point further by stating selective service takes this right away. This means that this right never existed in the way my opponent claims, which is COMPLETE control of themselves whenever. If the government has decided that it is in the best interests of this country to take your body for military service, then that violates personal autonomy; yet I see no protests, no evidence on my opponents parts suggesting what the government is doing is wrong, just a metaphor that is a little over the top. So if this isn't wrong, it isn't wrong to infringe this supposed right again for the sake of that person's life and the lives of others; this is an almost identical reason to that of selective service. Every patient helps further our research against these terminal killers, and by taking ones life, you are flushing all that potentiality down the drain. Depression I would like the reader to understand that on this very day, people in Oregon are being euthanized who actually don't want to be. Depression is very motivating for one to commit suicide or be euthanized; everything feels hopeless. Yet my opponent says that it's ok, because they said they wanted it, no matter the state they were in. Let me give the reader a metaphor of my own; a man with an arrow sticking out of his chest, bleeding profusely, is rushed to the emergency room by family, but he is in a haze because of the shock. He tells the doctors to leave it in, that he wants to die and doesn't care, but his family is insisting the doctor save their beloved father/husband. Would that doctor really put down his tools and say "Sorry, the man wants to die. Oh well, just another day" or would he perform the surgery and save the man's life? It's obviously the latter of the two, because a doctor has an oath he must uphold. If he were to let the man die, that family could sue that doctor and win. Yet, my opponent still insists that the doctor made the right decision? This helps my case for two reasons. It is clear that personal autonomy isn't something that everyone should just obey like the law or should allow to have such leverage over people, for this situation would be one of many that would be acceptable, and according to my opponent, for some reason that's ok. Also, this man can be compared to someone with depression, except the only difference is the doctor can't see the arrow. Depression is a very confusing condition for physicians, and it must be treated with the utmost care, or mistakes will happen that have been happening in places like Oregon, where Euthanasia is already legalized. My opponent tries stating that depression isn't the same as other diseases that control a person's actions; this is, again, just his opinion against the opinions of medical experts that I have previously quoted and sourced. Let the reader make no mistake, depression is an extremely serious variable that MUST be taken into account with all terminally ill patients. When speaking on depressed patients, my opponent starts to actually classify them as a group that we all know about and act around; depression can strike anyone at anytime, and isn't taken lightly. Pro tries stating that if depressed patients don't have the right to personal autonomy, then they shouldn't have the right to driving, marriage, career paths, etc. However, the fact remains that once a physician or trained psychiatrist catches on to an individual's depression, they take extreme measures, involving therapy and medicine, to cure this depression. There is no need to limit a depressed person's actions because medical experts would cure said depression if they would know about it, because they know how dangerous it can be to a person who, without it, would be completely normal and capable of making proper decisions. My opponent then claims that my main point is irrelevant due to selective service and suicide being illegal, but I fail to see how my opponent makes this connection or how this invalidates my argument. If anything, it hurts my opponents argument and should be taken as such by the reader, for he stated himself that ". .. the fact that suicide is illegal further show that we have no right to kill ourselves regardless of our psychological state. " He states right here that we have no right to kill our self, completely invalidating his argument which is that we have complete right to kill ourselves. I really don't see how this hurts my position that I stand for on this debate topic. Research I would like to note that my opponent hasn't refuted this point at all , for he just gives opinion as to why research might take too long. My opponent then says "show why terminally ill patients will start being cured before they die of their disease. " I never said that I would be proving this, but proving that these patients give way to research that can cure these diseases in the future. The source I cited earlier, . http://leda.law.harvard.edu... , in depth shows why these patients are crucial in medical research of these diseases, but I'm not going to sit here and bring up more info that my opponent can't retort. Another thing my opponent stated that is interesting was in response to my ending of round three, about euthanasia hindering medical research and ending human life. He tries saying that legalizing euthanasia would not make patients suicidal, but they would die none-the-less, and these deaths, at this point, we can all see would be pointless. | Conclusion | I have proved that both my contentions are left standing due to a lack of evidence on Pro's part and the fact that personal autonomy has it's limits. If Euthanasia were to be legalized, so many people would die needlessly to a monster called depression. Or is that monster Euthanasia, just reached by the efforts of depression? Either way, my case against Euthanasia is sound and stands on all fronts. Throughout this debate, I have proved through a plethora of sources and medical opinions, why my contentions are right and fully relevant to the topic while my opponent only suggests his opinions and a source (the oxford source which can be found in the comments) which was completely invalid after exposed it. My opponent then realized this, and dropped the source all together, trying to get the reader to forget yet another mistake on his part. We deal with the depressed by treating them, the terminally ill should be no different. Thank you Tim_Spin, and I thank the reader.