Euthanasia

Cure “Miracle cure” I assume is in response to the point where, in most cases, we can easily save the patient. You have claimed they think about possible treatment. But this refutes nothing. Patients that have already asked for death, but given cure for depression, stop asking for death. So whether or not they think about it is irrelevant. It has been shown depression, not the patient’s actual wants, controls their view on euthanasia for themselves [1]. Saving lives My opponent gives a weak case in life saving. Only 6000 people in the US (that are living) are organ donors. That is 0.002% of the population (using a 300 million number) [2]. And, euthanasia would not save lives this way anyway. With this low percentage anyway. And assume we ban euthanasia. And all of these people are cured. And live for another, say, 15 years. This would cause a continual chain of people dying and donating. Just like how there is a continual change in people dying and being born at once. Does this make sense? If it doesn’t ignore it. My above rebuttal makes sense. And its misleading to call them dying as I have proven throughout the debate nearly 100% of them can be healed. So it’s not really dying, if proper treatment is given. His second point is patient time. Of those terminally ill, only 40% of the 80 cases where honored. With 80 cases being honored, only about 4% of heavily sick patients get death. This means there are 1800 sick people. Most of which are quickly cured as proven previously. And, spread out amongst 50 states is not much of a burden, even at 1900 level. In reality, this is a very low percentage of people getting medical care so doctor relief would be negligible. Adding 80 people is nothing [3]. Depression The reason they can’t kill themselves because of depression is self-explanatory. These mental illnesses cloud logic. It literally makes them feel and do things differently. It is this disease, not “pain” that causes them to off themselves. Treating these people for depression would mean nearly all of them would decline euthanasia, thus negating the resolution. This means it is not really consensual. Same logic as the gay crowd *tries* to use. Instead this one works. If they cannot choose the outcome, why should they pay the consequences? If they have no control, then its illogical to penalize them with death which they really don’t want. My opponent would rather see a dead person then a living healthy one… Pain and family This assumes death is the only way out. As science, not mere assertions claiming pain is the only way out, notes, “The better response to patients in pain is not to kill them, but to make sure that the medicine and technology currently available to control pain is used more widely and completely. According to a 1992 manual produced by the Washing ton Medical Association, Pain Management and Care of the Terminal Patient, "adequate interventions exist to control pain in 90 to 99% of patients."[4] The pain objection is weak when looking on things from a scientific perspective. It means it is only justified, if you view pain as a reason to kill people, (using a middle point) about 4% of the time. Meaning banning it, on balance, would have negligible effect. It has also been shown people asking for suicides because of pain have a near 100% success rate as not only medicines are used, but psychological and therapeutic methods are successful as well [4]. There is no “stress” held out for that long, as we see above (if they take they non-death rout). Having a living person controlling for pain is not draining. Having a dead person is draining to a family. A “right”Ah, yes, but nowhere does it give a right to die either. Therefore your whole point is invalid. And, anyway, there is a right to life meaning they can keep you from dying. Courts have often times upheld these laws and supported malpractice suits towards doctors helping in suicide. Further, the courts acknowledge depression causes people to do irrational acts and, therefore, means there is no compelling reason to let them die. Verdict: no right to die in almost all of these cases [5]. Further, here is why my case on depression is so vital in this debate. My opponent agrees they are depressed, meaning he agrees there is no right to life! “Those seeking suicide would be legally entitled to be left alone …”[6] Left alone =/= inject the serum and pull the plug. Meaning depressed people have to be left alone. Therefore, there is no legal justification for euthanasia. Corruption My opponent dropped this point, therefore conceding it. Chilaxxxx Debate is a serous thing. Conclusion:Vote Con.[1] - http://www.nrlc.org... [2] - Data from here, percentages my own calculations http://www.donatelifeny.org... [3] - Data for how common it is http://euthanasia.procon.org... [4] - http://www.nrlc.org... [5] - http://www.jaapl.org... [6] - http://www.nrlc.org...