Voluntary Euthanasia

Well-argued bsh1. I will use this round to rebut Pro's case.R1. Human DignityA. Dignity and AutonomyThe argument at hand is that humans have a higher moral standing because of their unique ability to make moral decisions. This point lies on the premise that choice, whether good or bad, ought to be respected. The problem that arises here is that the ability to choose does not necessarily constitute a moral society. Human nature is flawed, and freedoms are often used badly. If humans are capable of immoral decisions, it's not ethical to blindly trust people to make the most moral decisions. Freedom is the precondition for virtue, and by allowing unnecessary freedom we are allowing people to use their agency in ways that may or may not be ethical.This ties back to my C2. If potential euthanasia patients are under pain and external pressures that can factor their decisions, it is probably not best to trust the patient to make that decision in the most moral manner.Autonomy isn't exactly an absolute principle. There are many instances in which it is obvious that self I determination should not be respected. For example, a child who runs out into the street when a car is coming should not be allowed the choice to run into the street because the consequences of their actions are unethical. To allow the child complete autonomy would result in disaster for them, and in order to preserve virtue we must limit freedom in such a proper manner that is best for themselves and not what they believe is best for themselves. When the child is denied the decision to run out into the street, they aren't reduced to the level of a bug, cow, or table. They learn more about what should be done rather than given the freedom to do what they think is moral. This can easily be applied to Pro's argument: just because patients think that they ought to be euthanized does not mean that their decision should be respected.B. Suffering We must take into consideration the factor that pain is a natural part of every life. Suffering is inevitable; whether one is medically I'll or not, they will always have to go through some form of suffering, whether physical, emotional, or both. Instead of treating pain as an evil that serves no purpose, we should strive to become better from it, and acknowledge that cannot simply run away from their trials. By using eugenics as a solution to pain, we are admitting that we are giving up on life and are done trying. This is to treat life as something of little worth, which is problematic because life itself contains worth. Life is, in fact, its own standard, thus rendering it implausible for it to be measured by any other means. If we were to treat life as an easel with each person as a painting, each painting would not exist without the easel in the first place. Although the painting adds value to the easel, it doesn't mean that the easel itself is without worth. To say such is to say that people are without worth, which is obviously incorrect. Pro seems to already agree with by arguing that human dignity constitutes moral worth by self-determination. Suffering contains value because it provides the opportunity to grow in wisdom, character, and compassion. Many of the talents and strengths that humans have developed have been brought about because of endurance and suffering in order to reach that spot. One who is unfit to climb a mountain must endure suffering to become fit for the challenge. Through resistance people's best characteristics are brought out, which enable growth and a peak of personality. When people know what it is like to suffer, they become more compassionate for people who are suffering because they understand their situation better. The ability to endure pain helps people in so many ways that to give up entirely seems unsound with the blessing of endurance.When taken into full consideration, euthanasia doesn't just eliminate pain but all the joy that would ever be perceived otherwise. Life comes in good and bad, so to take away life would be to take away all the good as well. This is if we admit that suffering is bad, of which I argued previously that it can be good. If our answer to the bad is to eliminate all chances of perceiving bad, we are eliminating far more than we really think we are. We are extinguishing worth and destroying all possible good.R2. Practical ReasoningThis contention makes two assertions: 1) potential euthanasia patients make attempts on their own lives often, and 2) suicide is more harmful than euthanasia. I would argue that many patients don't make attempts on their own lives, and that it is impossible to know what they're thinking regardless, so to make assumptions is needless. Pro's line "suicide or attempts at it are inevitabilities" is a bare assertion and can easily be proved false if one can find a terminally ill patient that has never attempted to take their own life. Since there obviously are, there's no reason to buy this claim. Pro also argues that to allow euthanasia would be to make death less harmful, but where is the evidence for this claim? Many suicides can be instantaneous without any harm done (besides death) so I see no reason to pass X as being more harmful than Y.R3. Ancillary Benefits A. Psychological ReassuranceThe family and friends of a loved one who chooses euthanasia may find it morally repugnant, as with suicide, and may suffer much more grief than with a natural death. To say that others will be reassured is subjective and depends on each person and whether or not they agreed with the patient's choice to be euthanized. Griz and Boyle said it best: "from the point of view of sound jurisprudence, the self-interest of the opponents of euthanasia can no more be excluded from consideration than the self-interest of its proponents."[1] To assume that the public will be reassured is to ignore the whole picture and not consider those who would be hurt from never being able to see their loved ones again.B. Religious FreedomI'm not sure why Pro thinks that prohibiting voluntary euthanasia disallows the right for people to practice their beliefs, because it doesn't. Would allowing euthanasia trample on the religious rights of those who are opposed to it for spiritual reasons? Of course not. Having the law not be in your favor doesn't mean you can't advocate for the opposition. Moreover, the nature of many religions would mean that many would believe that to eliminate ourselves would be to deny God and his right to choose how long we live and how we die. Plenty of religions also see the value in suffering. Pope John Paul II stated, "It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls"[2]. For others, cutting short one's life interferes with their eternal progression. If suffering is inevitable, its best to use that as a trial that makes us stronger rather than eliminating the life itself.C. Medical Resources More resources for lively patients become irrelevant when we review the International Code of Medical Ethics, which is that: "A physician shall always bear in mind the obligation to respect human life"[3]. It is not possible to respect life and destroy it at the same time, for that is contradictory. If a physician is going against this code and ending lives, then he or she is doing more bad than any good that can ever be done for other patients.D. Legality ItselfThe issue with this is the jumping-to-conclusions assertion that legalizing euthanasia decreased unwanted deaths. The fact that it happened in *one* nation that may or may not be accurately attributed to euthanasia is quite a minor point. We must also take into consideration the rise in involuntary euthanasia deaths that occurred in the Netherlands which I brought up last round.Sources [1] http://www.all.org...[2]http://www.lifeissues.net...[3] http://ethics.iit.edu...