Legalize Euthanasia

My opponent attempts to refute my first argument by appealing to the fact that the patient will die anyway, irrespective of whether or not they ask for euthanasia. However, surely this logic can be applied to all human life? We will all die at some point, so surely our whole lives are terminal? The logic fails because the fact that we will die eventually does not render it inconsequential to end our lives prematurely. If this wasn't the case, then there would be no reason why we shouldn't commit suicide here and now. One could argue that terminally ill people have nothing left to live for, but someone who is likely to be in a state of 'depression, anxiety and delirium' cannot make a sound assessment of their lives. In fact, many terminally ill people such as Stephen Sutton have lived arguably the best days of their lives after being diagnosed with terminal cancer. If euthanasia was the normal response to diagnosis of terminal illnesses, then these people will never experience the good things that can be experienced despite being terminally ill. Moreover, it is not a sufficient argument in favour of legalising euthanasia to appeal to the possibility that people will get an arbitrary sense of control. My opponent's next rebuttal mentions that some terminally ill people are not mentally ill. I agree with this, but the simple fact remains that mental instability is bound to affect most people who are terminally ill, even if it's just because of medication. When we legalise something we ought to consider the majority of people and not the minority. I concur that in the example of Brittany Maynard, euthanasia could be appropriate. However the example of a few people is not sufficient to outweigh all the negatives that will result from legalising euthanasia. Nevertheless, euthanasia is rarely actually necessary to alleviate suffering. Modern pain relief is improving all the time (1) and so death will no longer be the only way to alleviate pain, so euthanasia would not actually be necessary. In response to my point about euthanasia being normalised, Pro adjusts my list to present her view of how euthanasia would work. However, it is far too idealistic to expect terminally ill people to make fully-informed and rational decisions about issues as serious as life and death. There is a positive relationship between cognitive strength and ability to make autonomously valid decisions. For example, a child under the age of 16 is not particularly mentally capable, which is why an age of consent exists. This is also why a mentally ill person cannot give consent to sex. But if consent to sex is qualified by mental health, surely consent to death should also be? My opponent mentions that peoples' moral beliefs will prevent euthanasia becoming the norm for dying patients, but she does not realise that one's moral values are largely influenced by the law and cultural relativism. Children are taught the moral framework of the society in which they are raised, (2) so if euthanasia is made legal then children will be brought up in a society that approves of euthanasia, so it is more than likely that they also will approve of euthanasia. Pro opines that prevalence of euthanasia will not drain motivation from scientific research because they will still want to prevent people from having to choose euthanasia in the first place. Yet even if this is correct, euthanasia would most likely stifle this research anyhow. This is because a significant part of research methodology of terminal diseases relies on observation of patients from diagnosis to death. If euthanasia becomes prevalent (which I argue it will upon legalisation) then there will be no sufficient way in which we can observe how the disease develops. This would severely handicap research efforts. My opponent goes on to claim that 'the option would most likely only be offered to terminally ill patients, not just average elderly people.' However, the fact remains that most terminally ill patients are actually elderly. Pro has not adequately responded to my point that there is no way in which we could employ regulation to prevent external and Machiavellian persuasion on people to seek euthanasia, nor the point that elderly people would often feel pressured and motivated by guilt because they see themselves as a burden. Thanks for continuing this debate, Maddie, I've got to say you are doing very well considering it's your first debate. (1) http://www.webmd.com... (2) http://people.wku.edu...