Topic that was agreed upon in a message

To avoid confusions, the resolution is the following: Resolved: Voluntary Euthanasia Should Be Legal. I negate Euthanasia: The act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy (Merriam-Webster) Voluntary Euthanasia: Those instances of euthanasia in which a clearly competent person makes a voluntary and enduring request to be helped to die. (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy) Legal: One that conforms to rules or the law (Merriam-Webster) Should: A moral obligation Contention 1: Miracles Occur! Over the years we have experienced many "miracles" in medicine, many people, even in very recent years and months, who were expected to die, miraculously survived. If these people were to have been subjected to Euthanasia they would be dead now. These incidents have taught us to never lose hope and euthanasia is the very symbol of hopelessness. Contention 2: Hippocratic Oath Traditionally, doctors swear an oath when they receive their medical degree. This oath includes the phrase "I shall do no harm"; proposing suicide is a direct violation of that oath. Contention 3: Religion My opponent and I are Christians. The vast majority of churches and church bodies, object to Euthanasia. They do so, because Christians believe that "God gave us life and God should be the one to take it away". This amongst others, means that no human should have the power of life and death. This is especially true in the case of doctors that may be pessimistic at points and can easily be influenced by third parties, such as health insurance companies (that want to avoid extra funds for treatment being wasted and apply Euthanasia). Contention 4: Pessimism Certain patients, doctors and family may be pessimistic. For example if you tell a patient that he will die in three months because of some disease and that the pain will gradually increase, until he/she dies. This might make them pessimistic and because they might fear the pain, they might choose to be mercy killed in order to avoid it. This will eliminate all slim chances of survival and rob the pessimistic patient of his/her last days with the people he/she loves. Contention 1: Euthanasia furthers human rights My opponent states that it is a human's right to decide to be killed when terminally ill. I agree with this to a certain point. First of all, certain things may effect the patient's and the doctor's judgment. Some examples of this are: pessimism, fear of pain and hopelessness in the case of the patient. Pressure to have funds and treatment rooms cleared for other patient, by hospitals and influence and bribes from health insurance companies (that to avoid extra funds for treatment being wasted and apply Euthanasia) for doctors. The above proves that doctor and patient may make mistakes in judgment that will result in the patient to be subjected to Euthanasia, and since death is irreversible possible mistakes can not be recalled. In conclusion, we might have the right to euthanasia, but we many times be wrong in our judgment and situations like the one explained in my 4th contention may occur, that may cost us our lives (in the worst scenario) or are last days with our family and friends (in the best). Contention 2: Euthanasia is consistent with utilitarianism. True, it is consistent in a way, but utilitarianism is nothing but a philosophical theory and there are many contradictory theories that prove that Euthanasia is immoral. In philosophy you usually can't say that something is wrong of right. For example utilitarianism is no more right or wrong than the philosophical theory of egoism. So, Euthanasia may be consistent with ONE philosophical point of view, utilitarianism [type of consequentialism], but it is contradictory to virtue ethics and deontological ethics as well as some types of consequentialism. Therefore, my opponent's point proves little. Contention 3: Euthanasia is often necessary. My opponent tries to prove his pint by providing one example. In the specific example (dying driver), the right course of action (morally and legally) is to call an ambulance and get him to the hospital and perhaps his life will be saved. Therefore, my opponent's example lacks moral and legal judgment and devalues life and science (medicine), by losing hope to soon and not giving medicine a chance to save a life, (even if chances are that it won 't succeed, the huge value of a human life still makes it worth it!). I reserve the right to make other contentions in the following Rounds Thank you very much.