Topic that was agreed upon in a message

"My opponent misses the point of my argument. Even if 100 people are saved in total in the next 5 years, it is still worth it. This is because of the huge value of human life. I use the word miracle in a metaphorical way, to explain something improbable, ‘miraculous' recoveries happen a lot more often than my opponent believes, they may be highly improbable but not extremely rare either. ‘Miracles', especially in medicine can happen to anyone, even to those without faith, therefore my opponents last point does not stand. So, we should always have faith in science and never devalue the worth of a single human life, let alone numerous. " The point is, the life of a man is his own. If he chooses to end it, if he gives up hope, that's his conscious choice, we must respect it. Even if a miracle would've happened, he has asked to be euthanized. He was aware that there could be a miracle, but he chose this. We cannot judge him for that choice. We should accommodate it. ">An oath is an oath and after you make it (either it is right or wrong to do so) morality dictates that you should follow it. " Okay, but aren't you causing more harm when you allow your patient to suffer needlessly, and against their will. And if you believe in heaven, aren't you doing them a favor, by sending them to a place in which they are so much happier than they are now. If anything, not euthanizing the patient is against the Hippocratic Oath. "Just because they were wrong in the past doesn't mean they will always be wrong. Also, church has evolved a lot today and has gained a reputation over the past few [years] of supporting morality. > My opponent fails to refute the point that we should not give the power over life and death should not be given to a human, especially a doctor, who can easily be influenced by third parties. Therefore extend it. > It would be hypocritical by doctors who claim to fully support church to contradict it by applying Euthanasia. If a doctor does in fact chose to follow the church and not support Euthanasia, he would have to obey the law and go against his beliefs, which leads us to the next point that may be irrelevant from the argument of my opponent, but should be taken into consideration as an argument of its own, because as I said in Round 1, I reserve the right to make other conention. (sic)" The church is also against homosexuality right now. Is that something you would support? Anyways, our law should be above religion. And my opponent's point that people should not be able to have power over life and death is flawed. Because if we followed that, doctors couldn't save people, nor could they deliver babies, and paramedics couldn't decide whether to save the old man or the little boy with his puppy. Basically, the world wouldn't work, men have to have some control over life and death, otherwise, we get absurdities, such as doctors who can't euthanize you, but they can't save you either. They have to just watch you die. That's the problem with this logic. And his point about doctors going against their beliefs if the euthanize, flawed. A doctor is not forced to. There are many doctors who won't perform certain procedures, but there are always doctors who will. We can always let someone who believes euthanasia is morally acceptable do the euthanizing. "If a doctor refuses to support Euthanasia (many don't), 1. He/She would either have to go against his/her beliefs in order to keep their patients and money that they offer, this goes against liberty that my opponent claims to be supporting. 2. He/She would provide false opinions on the patient's conditioning in for them not to be subjected to Euthanasia. 3. He/She would have to give up their patient (and money from the treatment), to a doctor who supports Euthanasia just in case at some point of the treatment such an action is considered necessary, this is discrimination based on beliefs. In conclusion the affirmative would cause general problems in healthcare, this is already happening to some degree in the northern countries of Europe (strikes and objections from certain doctors), although sadly most doctors who object to Euthanasia chose to put their financial interest over their beliefs and shut their mouth in return for cash. " 1. He wouldn't have to do that. 2. He wouldn't have to do that either. 3. He could do this. Doctors however already do this with many types of treatment. I would not be causing any new problems. "Yes it is the patient's choice, but my opponent misses the point of my contention, I says that certain psychological factors (e. g. pessimism) effect the patient's choice and with his own consent may rob him of his last months of life and potential (although improbable recovery), my opponent's point is completely irrelevant and if one thing works on the negative, because he agrees that it is the patient's choice to die and we can not interfere and if his choice is wrong (due to his bad psychological condition) we still cannot prevent a wrong action because it is the patient's choice. Therefore, extend this point. " If we applied this logic to all situations, than we would not be allowed to do anything. Often my important choices are influenced by my environment, so that means that under his logic, the government would be able to take this choice away. I couldn't vote, because I might be influenced to make the wrong choice, I couldn't do anything important. That's absurd. '> The law my opponent is proposing (consulting two doctors) is not practical. First of all it would be huge waste of man hours to have two doctors to supervise a patient that is most probably going to die anyway. This is especially true in crowded hospital, were other patients that have a better chance for their lives to be saved need care and the doctors usually aren't enough. " Consulting does not mean two doctors with constant supervision. It's simply asking another doctor to look at my charts, and tell me what they think. "> Finally, I ask my opponent to present his proposed law so we can discuss it. " Basically, I propose that euthanasia is legal, and doctors are allowed to administer it, if patients that have been diagnosed with a terminal illness desire it. They have to get a second opinion from at least one other doctor before getting euthanized. "> My opponent's claim of 2 doctors has already been addressed as a non-realistic solution. >My opponent respond to this point by repeating his previous point and stating that there also solutions, that he does not present. > I ask my opponent to present his solution(s), so it can be discussed. " Okay, first, the 2 doctors works. It won't be an issue. Second what I meant was that the two doctors thing soves the problem, bribes pressure, pessimism, all of those go away. I don't have room to copy the last one, so I'll simply rebut it. My opponent says that philosophy is often based on opinion. Utilitarianism is based on pure logic, so my opponent is wrong. Mill proves happiness is the only desirable end, and that since we want to achieve happiness, we should follow a moral system that does so. That's where utilitarianism comes in. It is clearly the logical philosophy. Second, my opponent claims that consequences cannot be predicted. Actually, he is wrong. While there is a small chance that he could have recovered, it is so small, it is negligent with our choice. Also, we are not robbing him of his last days because he and his family have given them up freely. He can enjoy his last days earlier, and without having to suffer his pain.