Lincoln-Douglas Debate on Euthanasia

I affirm the Resolution: Voluntary active euthanasia ought not be permitted within a just society Definitions: Voluntary Euthanasia: The intentional taking of someone’s life, with permission, when that person is not expected to recover from a serious injury or disease. Just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. With these terms clarified, I now present my case. My Value will be Morality. We should always do what is moral in order to maintain a society we will be proud of. My Value Criterion will be Deontology, or that we should do whatever has the most moral “means” and not the most moral “ends”. Deontology states that the ends do not justify the means, so even if Euthanasia will give us a good outcome, we should still avoid it, as it is immoral to take one’s life. Deontology is the only way to achieve Morality because if we as a society are taking immoral actions, then we cannot be seen as a moral society. Contention 1: Euthanasia violates our Natural Instincts. As a human being, even with a higher mental capacity than other animals, we still show very animalistic instincts in times of danger. The flight or fight instinct is an example of this. So why would we choose to end our own lives when there was still a chance to come out on top? The only logical answer is that the stress of death clouds our sense of reason and confuses the victims. Patients may be tempted to choose euthanasia from altruistic motives, even though morally or otherwise opposed, so as not to be a "burden" or from a feeling of guilt for using scarce medical and economic resources. If the victim was fairly wealthy, greedy family members wanting inheritance may help “convince” the victim that euthanasia was a better option. Also, in order to make sure the person was fully in support of euthanasia, they would have to be told the full extent of their pain up front, rather than gradually in sections to make it all more tolerable. This knowledge could make someone panic and pick an option that they would never get to take back. Only by tricking our survival instincts could we voluntarily choose to have our life’s taken. Contention 2: It is against Self Interest to choose the “easy out” option. I am sure you have heard this common phrase, “When one door closes, another one opens.” This phrase says that every decision leads to one or more other options, and that one choice can create a whole new path for your life. This is not true, however, if that choice is to end your life. If you choose euthanasia, no other door will open when that one closes because your life will be over. If you refrain from it, there is always the possibility that your disease may have a cure found before you naturally die, or the chance you were falsely diagnosed, and your true sickness is actually not fatal/permanent. These options cannot occur for you if you are dead. This is why we must always try to live as long as possible in hopes that other, less fatal options arise. Contention 3: Death by euthanasia hurts more than just the victim. Just as suicide hurts the close family members of the victim, euthanasia does as well. The family or loved ones of a patient choosing euthanasia may find it morally repugnant (as with suicide) and suffer much more grief than if it were a natural death. Most of the objections concern the harmful effects of legalizing euthanasia on those who are opposed to euthanasia. Grisez and Boyle argued, "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." They stated that legalizing voluntary euthanasia would serve no public interest but only the personal, private interest of those demanding legalization. (Germain Grisez and Joseph M. Boyle, Jr., authors of Life and Death with Liberty and Justice). If the victim’s family members find the idea of euthanasia immoral, then it will hurt them more to see their love choose it over dying a natural death. We must also think of the possibility of a doctor who does not believe euthanasia is moral, yet is forced to perform it upon his patients. The suffering he goes through needs also be realized. Contention 4: We must avoid voluntary euthanasia in order to avoid the “slippery slope it creates” The slippery slope argument says that one thing will lead to another which will lead to another, like a snowball rolling down a cliff and growing bigger and bigger as it goes down. The euthanasia slippery slope is based on the word “voluntary”. If we enact this system of euthanasia, then we put a high level of power in the hands of our doctors: the power over life itself. Doctors will be able to choose who lives and who does not by simply “persuading” the victim that the better option is to be euthanized over the “suffering” of life. How long will it be before this system and this “persuasion” becomes “convincing” and later “forcing”. We are putting a high level of power in the hands of a human being, one who will naturally go corrupt with it. While not all doctors may end up like this, we cannot let even one do so, as then our whole medical system is corrupt. Not only do we risk "snowballing" the chance of the procedure becoming less voluntary, we also run the risk of it losing its purpose in benefiting the victim. Right now, the way voluntary euthanasia would be set up is to "ease the pain" of the victim's injury/illness. If we implement it, however, we also run the risk of creating a program that benefits the victims less, and begins to benefit the surrounding people. According to Ilene MacDonald, “The problem stems in the country's payment system that rewards doctors based on volume of procedures rather than quality of care, according to the article. Cardiologists get paid less to talk about the risk of the procedure and alternative treatments than they do for implanting the device" (FierceHealthCare.com). The more stents he implants, the more he benefits, at the cost of his patients. Can we risk implementing this program and ending up causing more and more doctors to perform euthanasias in order to grow that paycheck, when it comes to benefit the victim less? Why risk the “snowball effect” of euthanasia when we can just allow nature to continue deciding who dies when, rather than allowing the doctors to “persuade” the people, or let the doctors benefit more than the patients themselves? Contention 5: Deontology tells us euthanasia is immoral Deontology states that the most moral action is the one with moral intentions. We can all agree it is immoral to kill people. That is an action that we as humans have agreed upon. So why can we see it okay to kill those who are going to die by natural means anyways? The truth of it all is that, even if euthanasia can “ease” the pain the victim suffers, we are still killing people that may end up living and overcoming their sickness had we left them alone. Due to euthanasia using immoral means to justify a “moral” end, we have to realize that it is immoral to end the life of another human being. Contention 6: In order to be a just society, or a society based on doing what is morally right and fair, we must not allow the use of euthanasia. As a just society is one that does what is morally right and fair, and Deontology tells us euthanasia is immoral, then we must not permit euthanasia in order to maintain a just society. We cannot let our world come to one where our friends and family are tricked into giving the “okay” to be murdered. That would not allow us to be moral in any circumstance, and this is why we cannot allow voluntary active euthanasia.For these reasons and more, I strongly urge you all to vote in affirmation of the resolution.