Euthanasia

Thanks for waiting :DDepression My opponent’s claim is they will take medicines then choose euthanasia. Though as stated virtually all euthanasia patients are depressed, and once they are healed they choose life. Meaning unless we mandate depression testing before they choose suicide, the problem would never be fixed as doctors rarely point out that they are depressed. And these mandates are contradictory to your arguments, as it would increase the amount of time doctors are with the patients. And, much of the time, it would be a violation of rights to enter their realm. So, really, this solution won’t work. And, anyway, many of these medications are ineffective meaning we think they are rational when they still are not, making your solution more frivolous [1]. Lives My opponent has claimed that there is 100 million signed up to be a donor. However many of them don’t pass the necessary tests so the actual donor count, based on that source, is 14,000 [2]. And, anyway, I have already showed these donors would eventually die so there would still be a continual chain of donors, and, therefore, having no effect on the amount of donors. Furthermore, I showed even if you agree with my opponents (they die faster meaning more donors) you would only add 80 to the stockpile. And many of them would not pass the tests. In reality, euthanasia would save no lives and have a net negative. And my opponent in his 100 million statistics also misses the point. Many of them choose later not to be a donor, and using living and dead so we get the 14,000 number. SO basically the 6,000 numbers is a better estimate. And that 100,000,000 counts people since the technology existed. Cost His argument is a play on emotions. A fallacy. I showed 300 people would have no overall effect, and this is a fact, and my opponent never refuted it. He merely states we are in bad economic times. Though this does not refute anything. It merely concedes no effect, meaning there is no cost benefit demonstrated by my opponent. Merely play on emotions. PainAgain, this point is weak as all diseases can be treated leaving minimal or non-existent pain. As the NRLC notes, “Proponents of euthanasia argue that "mercy-killing" is necessary because patients, particularly those with terminal illness, experience uncontrollable pain. They argue that the only way to alleviate the pain is to eliminate the patient. But is there a better way? … 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."[3]Meaning his point on pain is, again, a play on emotions. There is no such thing as “mercy” killing, and this point is a moot. The quote above was previously given, I think, and I did indeed show there is no pain to control and, therefore, the point does not work in my opponents favor. And yes, many Americans get cancer. The point? See the quote above. This doesn’t work in your favor. A “right”My opponent in summary only says this: it’s a personal choice. This is not enough to prove it is a right as I have shown a right to life exists. Basically its like this:1. A right to life exists (my opponent agrees)2. No legal document shows a right to death exists (my opponent dropped this)3. Euthanasia does not fulfill any right to life and violates the right to life The second part of my argument is:1. Most people on euthanasia are depressed (agreed upon)2. If you are depressed, legally, you cannot be given anything except depression treatment “Those seeking suicide would be legally entitled to be left alone [if they where depressed]”[4] 3. There is no right to euthanasia, they should be left alone This mean arguing it’s a choice is irrelevant unless he shows this choice is a right, not a mere privilege or choice. My opponent then talks about religions, though this has nothing to do with rights. Many religions support murder, though murder isn’t a right. This argument is irrelevant. Conclusions Basically we get PROs appeal to emotions, and misrepresenting his own evidence [2]. And many mere assertions that do nothing to prove or disprove anything in the debate. When you get right down to it, PRO has failed to refute any of my arguments or prove his one point (rights). A CON vote would be logical. [1] http://www.overcomingbias.com... [2] http://www.organdonor.gov... [3] http://www.nrlc.org... [4] http://www.nrlc.org...