Euthanasia should be legalized with requirements

Good luck in this debate it is sure to be an interesting one indeed! 1. Immoral As stated in my opponents opening statement this moral law is the creation of one man so it is based off of one person's belief system and that should not dictate the life of others as they might believe very differently from him. This is his statement on suicide: A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels sick of life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask himself whether taking his own life would not be contrary to his duty to himself. Now he asks whether the maxim of his action could become a universal law of nature. But his maxim is this: from self-love I make as my principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction. There only remains the question as to whether this principle of self-love can become a universal law of nature. One sees at once that a contradiction in a system of nature whose law would destroy life by means of the very same feeling that acts so as to stimulate the furtherance of life, and hence there could be no existence as a system of nature. Therefore, such a maxim cannot possibly hold as a universal law of nature and is, consequently, wholly opposed to the supreme principle of all duty. " Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals From his statement we can take two phrases: "from self-love I make as my principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction." This applies perfectly to the moral standards of euthanasia because it is not meant for a young teen suffering from heartbreak but primarily for the terminally ill whose shortened life will be filled with pain and suffering. His example of "taking your hand out of a fire because it burns, and by using pain as a reason to end one's life was contradictory to the purpose of pain" is irrelevant because in his example there is something that the person can do to make the pain stop. That person is not dying of an illness or suffering from paralysis from the neck down. "feeling that acts so as to stimulate the furtherance of life" Pain is indeed meant to preserve ones life but the world is not so black and white that Kant's moral belief system should be absolute for everyone. In the case of the terminally ill pain is useless because there is nothing one can do to save their life. . Therefore Kant's moral belief system becomes irrelevant. We euthanize millions of animals every year under the premise that it is the "humane" thing to do because they would have no quality of life. If animals are allowed that humanity then why not us? 2. Subjectivity It is true that it is subjective but that does not mean that the lives of those who suffer should be determined from those who are not. It is extremely rare for such a terminal illness to receive a different opinion for other doctors once reasonable methods of treatment have been taken and there are many determining factors such a 90 year having to go through brutal chemotherapy after the cancer has been cut out of the body. The chances of this person making any kind of significant recovery at their age is highly unlikely. A person has to determine for themselves what quality of life they have after such a thing occurs. Pain is purely subjective which makes it even more crucial that the decision be left in the hands of the patient. A patient has the right to refuse treatment which in many cases is a form of legal suicide. The doctor knows the patient will die without the treatment but they do not have the right to forcefully save their life by making them take the treatment. The hardest part of this law would be to include terminally ill children. The standard for them would have to resemble similar requirements as these: - Every viable medical option has been attempted - Both parents consent - The child has been deemed competent enough to understand the implication of death Simply because it is hard to enforce does not mean that it should not be done. http://blogs.bmj.com... 3. Right to Die There have many laws created that do not appear on the constitution so to say that there is no constitutional right determines nothing. Terri Schiavo's case is the perfect example, her husband made the choice to remove her from the feeding tubes which resulted in her death. The federal court upheld the husbands decision. The law allowed this woman to starve to death which is a cruel way to die. Removing the feeding tubes was a form of assisted suicide because they knew for certain that she would die. Before her condition progressed she made it very clear to her husband that she did not want to be kept alive by a machine and he respected her wish. If the law is going to allow a person to starve to death and refuse treatment that would save their life it should also allow them to choose euthanasia, a much more humane way to pass. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Slippery Slope "The legalization of voluntary euthanasia/physician assisted suicide would lead down a slippery slope to other non-voluntary euthanasia" This is purely a matter of my opponents opinion as there is no evidence to support the claim. There is no way to prove that what happened in another country would happen in America. Is there a risk it could get slippery? Yes but that can be said of any law that has ever been enacted. In America abortion is a very heated debate and on the border line of being declared illegal so to suggest that infants would start being euthanized without probable cause is highly unlikely but we should always be vigilant to ensure that no law is abused. 5. Voluntary The program set up by the Nazi's was murder plain and simple, it was by no means voluntary. They started targeting the ill and disabled two years before the attempted genocide of the Jew's which is known as the holocaust. They twisted it around to disguise their true intent which was genocide. "Euthanasia Program The term "euthanasia" (literally, "good death") usually refers to the inducement of a painless death for a chronically or terminally ill individual who would otherwise suffer. In the Nazi context, however, "euthanasia" represented a euphemistic term for a clandestine murder program which targeted for systematic killing mentally and physically disabled patients living in institutional settings in Germany and German-annexed territories. The so-called "Euthanasia" program was National Socialist Germany's first program of mass murder, predating the genocide of European Jewry, which we call the Holocaust, by approximately two years" To suggest that a euthanasia program in America would resemble anything similar to that of the Nazi's is completely absurd. There is no Nazi party here trying to find legal methods of exterminating people. http://www.ushmm.org... Below is what the Gallup poll found: "Broad Support for Euthanasia Using "Painless Means" Wording Has Been Steady The alternative euthanasia wording -- describing it as ending a patient's life by some painless means -- dates from 1947, and shows the majority opposed to it at that time. Attitudes flipped by the early '70s, with 53% in favor, although significant opposition remained. By 1990, nearly two-thirds were in favor, and support has remained at about that level, except for 1996 and 2005, when it rose to 75%." Law's are created in the best interest of the many and to suggest that most families would let a family member chose euthanasia without trying to persuade them is ludacris. Furthermore the patient would have to qualify for euthanasia they would not be able to have it performed without probable cause and being a burden would not be one of the qualifying factors. I will argue 6. in the next round. Out of characters