Suffering justifies euthanasia.

Hi Cassandra, Being in a depressed mood can also mean that a person has clinical depression. Since depression is a medical condition, I believe that it is a factor in the decision to euthanize because euthanasia is often in response to medical conditions or diseases. Depression causes changes in a person's moods and thoughts. If a person is faced with the decision to euthanize in this compromised state, they may end up making decision they will regret. Depression is a treatable condition, so at the very least we should try and treat it before giving them the option of euthanasia. It is perfectly normal to be a sad in the last stages of life, especially if the person in question has had great suffering. However, we must remember that suffering has objective goods that come from it. There are seven that I know of, and some don't appear in every situation. Enlightenment: This is an objective good because it allows people to know the universal truth, and ultimately be happy because they know truly what is right and what is wrong (If you have more questions about this, please look at my comments on the debate). A person suffering will know more about the cause of their suffering, and related issues. This knowledge can be transmitted to others. For example, a person who has cancer, and their family, will know more about cancer, chemotherapy, and radiation treatments. The doctors treating the person will know how their treatments affect them and will be able to make adjustments in the future. This would ultimately contribute to society. Detachment: Suffering will allow people to see what is truly important in our lives, and who are true friends are. Drawing out of true love: Love is something that is an objective need for humans. There are subjective elements (meaning people love different things and in different ways), and different types (parental, friendship, etc.), but they are all love. True love is something that leads us to the universal truth, and eventually happiness. Reparation: This is usually connected to economic suffering and not very applicable in our case. For example a person may have to pay for something they have broken or lost. Justice dictates that they have to pay, however the person may be suffering from a lack of money. Compassion: A person will become more compassionate towards other people in the same suffering and will hope to support them. Compassion is objectively good, but it has subjective elements similarly to love. Humility: We must recognize that humans have equal dignity and rights, so therefore we cannot become prideful. A person who is suffering could let go of their pride, and see that they are just like everyone else. Building of character/virtue: A person who has suffered may become more patient, or courageous, thinking "I have gotten through X, so I can definitely do Y". You are correct in saying that a doctor's duty is not to torture a patient by keeping him or her alive. A doctor's true duty is to resolve medical issues, and to assist in treatment. I'm not saying we keep a person on life support indefinitely, I'm saying to let them die a natural death. What I'm proposing is that we provide basic needs of food, water, shelter, and possibly pain medication if needed, but not things that replace life sustaining biological processes. This may not be as cheap as euthanasia, but it is cheaper than life support. Suffering cannot justify euthanasia instead of a natural death, not only because of the objective goods of suffering, but also suffering has no way of being measured. We cannot say how much suffering justifies an action, because it is immaterial (its not a physical object). If we say that an amount of suffering justifies an action, it could lead to a slippery slope. For example, people could be euthanized for treatable conditions, such as a cold, because it causes a great amount of suffering. Cassandra, Thank you for debating with me, let the best argument win!