Euthanasia

"I cannot prove my point without successfully supporting the all three of following points{1} killing, as defined, does not equal murder{2} [therefore] those who physically conduct the euthanasia are not murderers{3} suicide and therefore Euthanasia is legitimate"Overall, the issue lies in how we defined murder. To get to your conclusion of euthanasia is legitimate then we have to assume that murder is immoral. Otherwise, P2 and P3 does not connect. To restate your premise in simpler terms then your premises are saying: 1) killing is not immoral (double negative, sry) 2) the physician performing euthanaisa is not immoral 3) sucide and euthanasia is legitimate (moral). If we accept that all types of killing are moral, then my argument falls and your premise hold. However, I do not think that the readers will agree that all types of killing are moral. Thus, your premises are not sound and did not justify that euthanasia is legitimate. The fact that you did not defend your case suggests that I have the upperhand in this debate. Lastly, going back to what i stated about all killings = murder, I will admit that I made a blunder and forgot to add "in the case of euthanasia" for that sentence. However, even if we go with view that all killings are murder, her statement still does not hold because her premises do not connect without making assumptions to the legality of killing and murder (the premise needs one to assume that killing is legal.) As for the Rachels argument, Con is basing her arguments off of intentions of both the doc and the patient. We are not focusing on the intentions but on the action itself. The physical performance of drowning, or euthanizing the person. Even with consent from the patient and physician alike, it does not strike down the morality of performing the actual killing. My case still stands."As to drunk driving and human error, they are irrelevant to this debate, because both examples are deemed to be manslaughter"That's true: it's manslaughter, from most legal points (what is enough for me here). But it is still killing due to your premise that killing is "an act that causes death". Drunk driving is an excellent example, as we have the act and we have the cause of death. The intention (premeditation) behind the act is just the criteria for Murder, not for killing. Manslaughter, as Murder, is only theinterpretation we draw from the pure act of killing. Euthanasia is another one." I understand completely, but I was stating that the examples were irrelevlant because you do not give a case as to why euthanasia is not murder. You demonstrated that there are different types of killings but you did not address my argument in R1 where euthanasia is considered murder. 1. Financial burden of being sick will force people into choosing Euthanasia dependently.This purely applies to the American health system. And is therefore dependent itself. Neither is everyone in the western societies part of the american health system nor is this system itself indefeasible. Both, the law concerning Euthanasia and the US health system can be altered and therefore a solution can be found to make them compatible. Reforming healthcare is a big task. It is easy to state that we can change laws or completely dissable the healthcare and start from scrtach, but realisitically, suggestting a radical change can't be easily implemented. This is seen with our current Affordable Healthcare Act.2. Euthanasia is an inappropriate way of cutting the costs for terminal ill patients and would encourage doctors to force that on their patients, therefore go against the Hypocratic Oath. First a doctor that truly believes in his Hypocratic Oath would naturally not encourage his patient to take his life. But as doctors are not perfect human beings it is easy to back it up by law that they are not allowed to encourage it.These were actually two different arguments, you ended up combining both thinking they were the same lol. One of the fears is that leagalizing euthanasia would be a procedure done by doctors as a form of treatment. The hippocratic oath is about saving lives, not taking away lives. As in the doctor's duties are to treat the patient with his utmost capabiliy along with providing the necessary pallapative care. If we combined the two, then your argument suggests that we should establish laws that gives doctors the freedom the choose. This demonstrates that euthanasia affects 3rd parties, a statement that goes against your argument that euthanasia does not affect 3rd party members.3. It will lead to an absurd amount of court cases about grey area cases. Mainly when the law is poorly phrased. Can the consent be proven? If no, the cases prospectively fails prior to the first instances. That's not expensive for the community. And there are at least some cases where doctors helped a patient passively to commit suicide and were sued for it. These cases, as they can be regarded as Euthanasia, would not burden the community any more. I am not saying this will reduce a judges work. But it will not significantly raise it either. Consent would be harder to differentiate if the finacial burden argument is a form of consent. Leagal cases are a huge stress on society with it's finacial costs and time. Adding even 1 case to each state/year totals to 50 cases/year. The supreme court sees 80 courts/year. 4. It's emotionally damaging for relatives and friends if someone is allowed to die. For someone who is terminally ill this means is only robbing his loved ones from months of watching him or her suffering. Someone who knows that he will die and is still physically and mentally fit to spent this time with those he loves will usually not agree to any sort of Euthanasia. If they are immobilized and under pain it's not something pleasant to watch for their relatives as well. And ultimately it's not their decision. The weal and woe of relatives should not be a reason to prevent someone legally from having their will carried out.So you are conceding to the fact that euthanasia does affect 3rd parties. This contradicts your argument that euthansia should be allowed because it does not affect anyone but the person himself, as stated in R1.You say its soley an American attitude for the last two paragraphs, but only 20 out of the 196 countries leagalized euthanasia. That doesn't seem to suggest that it's soley an american attitude. http://en.wikipedia.org...SummaryMy only purpose in this debate was to refute the 3 assertions that Pro made. For me to win, I only need to show 1 of them is at fault for her premise to be wrong. The most prominent one was her argument that euthanasia does not affect 3rd parties of which there were several instances she conceded to my point. At the end, thank you schachdame (too lazy to write it out :P) for the debate.