Euthanasia

Thank you for a great topic! I will be presenting my stance first, and then rebutting some of MoonGazer"s comments. PRESENTING THE CON'S CASE It is my core stance that euthanasia, as it is defined within this round, is too broad and open to abuse, and should therefore not be legalized. Just a quick observation: Euthanasia has many subsets, as noted in Round One. We agreed that the term "euthanasia" applied to all of those subsets, and consequently, if euthanasia is made legal, than so are all of those subsets. Contention One: Involuntary euthanasia should not be legalized. Involuntary euthanasia was defined as "where a person is killed against their expressed wishes." I see very little than distinguishes this from murder. In fact, this could become an excuse for murderers who wish to escape their crimes. If I kill a cancer patient for their money, I could very easily say I was engaging in involuntary euthanasia, and escape my prison sentence. It creates a slippery slope that ought to be avoided. Contention Two: Non-voluntary euthanasia should not be legalized. If a patient is unable to give their consent, they should not be killed; namely, because it enables others to exploit their inability to speak for themselves. A relative could easily kill their comatose family member in order to inherit the money. By no means can we be sure that an individual is not making the call to euthanize someone out of self-interest. The welfare and desires of the patient should be considered paramount, and we can hardly claim that killing someone for their money is an act done out of empathetic concern for a patient"s wellbeing. To avoid such instances as this, or at least to minimize them, consent must be obtained. Furthermore, there have been cases wherein people suddenly awake from comas; if they had been euthanized, this new chance at life would have been lost. Lastly, it seems to me that patient"s near the end of their lives or severely afflicted by illness oftentimes do not make decisions in their right mind. So even if consent were obtained, it could still be insufficient. Consent should, with an issue of this magnitude, be informed and made in a rational, calm state. Permitting anything else would be too risky. Thus, non-voluntary euthanasia (as well as voluntary euthanasia when consent is questionable) should be prohibited. Analysis: Contentions One and Two illustrate how legalizing such a broad idea of euthanasia sets us on a slippery slope that could easily open Pandora"s Box. It could, at worst, permit murder and even enable people to make life-or-death calls out of self-interest or spite, rather than concern for the afflicted individual. Contention Three: Life is too important to throw away. Existentialist Albert Camus argued that life is a search for meaning, and the moment we decide to end that search, our live become meaningless. I cannot help but agree with this approach. All humans aspire to be greater, to self-actualize, and to grow/evolve. We, as people, are constantly looking for purpose and meaning in our lives, but when we surrender to death, we seem to say "I can no longer grow as an individual." I don"t believe that"s true; even with only a few days left, there are always things we can do, be they talking with family or reflecting on our own lives. Contention Four: Euthanasia shouldn"t be legalized because a government"s job is to protect its people from death. This goes through a standard social contract analysis. A government"s job is to prevent you from coming to harm. Death is a harm, and the moment we deny that it is a harm is the beginning of yet another slippery slope. Thus, a government should not let you die, and should not permit euthanasia to be legalized. Analysis: it would be both immoral and irresponsible of a government to legalize euthanasia, particularly from a philosophical perspective. Thus, I rest my case. REFUTING PRO"S CASE I think my contentions three and four rebut this whole notion of a "right to die." Also, think of what types of problems that could create"if, one night, someone got drunk and started to feel depressed, should they be allowed to kill themselves? Do they have a right to die, even if they might feel completely different tomorrow? I don"t think it"s safe to just let people start killing themselves. Furthermore, you must be conscious to exercise a right; this would seem to mean that non-voluntary euthanasia would be illegal, as it does not allow people to choose to employ that right. The same can be said of involuntary euthanasia. Euthanasia may create the illusion that dignity is preserved, and it might be a nice euphemism for the family to hide behind, but ultimately, someone has died, and a life has been lost. If we truly accord human life dignity, we would not take the step of violating it, especially when there are ways to cope with pain. The case of the man starving himself is only one instance, and cannot obfuscate the fact that euthanasia is problematic. Finally, my third contention addresses the importance of life. PRIMA FACIE REASONS TO REJECT PRO"S CASE (1) Miracle Cures or surprise remissions are known to cure. We should not allow people to take their own lives if there is a chance, however slight, that they may recover. (2) Pro"s case would let loose Pandora"s Box, and therefore, because of the risks posed by some forms of euthanasia, the practice as a whole should not be legalized. (3) Medical technologies are always advancing. Who knows, in 10 years there may be a cure for a coma patient"s condition. Again, if there is a chance of improving, we should not take a life. (4) Pro"s arguments are predicated on the idea that victims are suffering, yet a comatose individual is not necessarily suffering, and there are ways of moderating the pain. Furthermore, where do we draw the line"how much pain is enough to euthanize someone? If I break a kneecap, can I be euthanized? How do we draw a non-arbitrary line that allows us to determine how much pain is too much? If we cannot do that, then euthanasia cannot be justified because there would be little to no reason for it. Thus, I negate that euthanasia should be legalized, and I look forward to the next round of debate!