Voluntary Euthanasia

Thanks to Varrack for the debate! I will now lay out my case.OBSERVATIONSOB1. Types of EuthanasiaThere are several kind of euthanasia available, including voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary, with active and passive variations of each one of those three. Given that the resolution only specifies that I am defending "voluntary euthanasia," both active and passive voluntary euthanasia are my ground. If I can affirm just one of these varieties, I have affirmed that voluntary euthanasia is morally justifiable. OB2. Morally JustifiableThe resolution requires me to affirm that voluntary euthanasia is morally justifiable. "Justified" is to provide a good reason for something. It is therefore not my job to show that voluntary euthanasia is actually moral, nor is it my job to show that the reasons for supporting it are the best reasons. Merely, I must show that there are "good" reasons to believe in the morality of voluntary euthanasia. So, for instance, one might say that there were good reasons for people to believe the Flat Earth Theory (shout out to Wylted) way back in the mists of time before technology and science advanced, but those people were, at the time, scientifically justified in holding that belief. Similarly, I need not demonstrate that my position is ultimately correct or the best stance to take; I just need to show that there are good reasons for my stance. For Con to successfully negate, he needs to show that there is no reasonable ethical or logical ground for me to stand on.ARGUMENTSC1. A Human Dignity-Based ApproachSC1. What is Human Dignity?I am sure that it will be an uncontroversial statement that people have human dignity. Hugo Badau describes human dignity as entitling one to a "life sufficient for self-respect, relief from needless drudgery, and opportunity for the release of productive energy." [1] The question naturally arises, though, wherefrom we derive this dignity. Human have human dignity because we are self-determining. A table, for instance, cannot reasonably be said to have dignity, because it cannot make choices. The same thing is true of a bug, or even something more advanced, such as a cow, because the cow is governed by instinct, and cannot choose to override its instincts. The ability to knowingly choose to act morally or immorally, even when our choices go against our natural urges, makes us unique moral agents, as we are perhaps the only entities capable of making moral choices in every situation, even if we fail more often than we succeed. This special moral position is the root of our human dignity, for when our ability to make choices is denied, we are reduced to the level of a bug, cow, or table. We are treated as inanimate things, and denied that quality that makes us morally special. This is a large part of the reasoning behind why coercion, unjust imprisonment, torture, maiming, etc. are wrong, because they limit our ability to self-determine.SC2. Respecting AutonomyIt is not a difficult leap of logic to then apply this notion to the debate at hand. If we believe that self-determination is the root of human dignity, then it would be wrong to deny the requests of a patient who has made a choice to die. To deny them that ability to choose is to treat them as a mere thing, and not an agent with moral worth.SC3. Preventing Needless SufferingSuffering also poses a danger to human dignity, as the condition of suffering is choice- and freedom-limiting. Someone who is suffering may not be able to engage in activities that they would otherwise want to engage in because the pain of acting is simply too high. Needless suffering is therefore something to be ameliorated where possible. It is also important to clarify that suffering is both emotional and physical. Even if palliative care is able to remedy or suppress the physical ailments causing pain, it may be unable to alleviate the emotion and psychological trauma a patient may be undergoing. When emotional suffering is excluded, estimates place the number of euthanasia-qualified patients in unremitting pain at around 25,000. [2] That is a significant number of people who could be helped by voluntary euthanasia practices.Moreover, there is something cruel and unusual about allowing people to languish in pain awaiting their death, something analogous almost to torture. Pain and degradation are both tools of torture, and patients can feel both, often at excruciatingly high intensities. Therefore, it would seem that if we also hold torture to be a fundamental violation of human dignity, we must also classify the pain of a euthanasia candidate similarly. In both cases though, the pain and humiliation are wrong, and should be halted. If the goal of our medical professionals truly is to do no harm, it seems that they are doing harm by prolonging the life of a suffering person.C2. Practical Moral Reasoning"First, consider that often people commit suicide actively, not passively, and the idea is that they want to be able to exercise control in how their life ends. Second, because one does not want to risk a failed suicide attempt, which could result in pain, humiliation, and disfigurement, one might find that they can meet their goal of death best by the assistance of another, in particular a physician." [3] Certainly we can agree that many people will want to end their lives when faced with the possibility of having their imminent death dragged out before their eyes over a series of months. When we confront this practical reality--that people in such positions will attempt to kill themselves--we have to consider whether there is a way to mitigate the damages that might occur. Suicide or attempts at it are inevitabilities, so rather than attempt to fight it, it may be more morally productive to make it less harmful.Consider, if I am an investor, and I know that I will inevitably have a bad day trading and will lose money, rather than becoming super paranoid trying to avoid ever having a bad day, it makes more sense to simply wager less and stockpile reserves of cash in case I need a cushion. The first method (i.e. me doing tons of research at all hours of the night to try to find the right stocks that will only ever earn me money), will just wear me down. The second method accepts that there will come a time when bad things happen, but we've taken steps to mitigate those negative effects to produce the most desirable outcome.Similarly, voluntary euthanasia is a way of accepting that bad stuff is going to happen, and then working to mitigate those eventual harms. It seems to produce worse conclusions to not offer voluntary euthanasia than to offer it.C3. Ancillary BenefitsSC1. Psychological Reassurance"They argue, however, that many individuals who never use the practices would benefit. Some patients would feel better cared for and more secure if they knew that their physician would provide a lethal injection or supply of pills if they requested these means to escape suffering. Knowing that assisted suicide or euthanasia is available would also reassure members of society in general, including those who are not severely ill. 'While relatively few might be likely to seek assistance with suicide if stricken with a debilitating illness, a substantial number might take solace knowing they could request such assistance.'" [4] This links back to preventing needless suffering.SC2. Religious FreedomThe Unitarian Universalist Church specifically advocates for "self-determination in dying." [5] I am sure that other faiths or sects within various faiths hold similar views. Prohibiting voluntary euthanasia thus violates these faiths' practitioners' rights to freely exercise their religious beliefs. This connects back to the importance of self-determination in human dignity. Also, faith is often a source of meaning to people, and it thus seems cruel to deny them access to their faith.SC3. Medical Resources and Expenses(a) Allowing individuals to end their lives early would logically free up oftentimes scares resources for more needy individuals. Drugs, facilities, as well as doctors and nurses engaged in palliative care can be redistributed to help those who are not approaching imminent death. This actually will maximize free choice in the long run, by improving the freedom and quality of life of those who will continue to live, while respecting the choices of those who would rather die.(b) Euthanasia would help alleviate sometimes staggering debt incurred by the families of those in end-stage care. [6]SC4. Legality Itself Is A Plus"In 2005, a study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient’s explicit permission...A 1991 report...put the number at 0.8 percent. In other words, giving a nationwide go-ahead for doctors to legally end their patient’s lives actually halved the number of unwanted deaths." [6] Making the procedure above-the-board incentivizes doctors who may think euthanasia is a good option to actually discuss it with their patients and seek their permission, rather than to act unilaterally. Legalizing the practice of euthanasia is the best way to regulate it, to ensure that it isn't abused. It's a similar principle to pot legalization--by making it a legitimate enterprise, people are more likely to report abuses and cooperate with government oversight professionals.SOURCES1 - http://www.jstor.org...2 - http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu...3 - http://www.iep.utm.edu...4 - https://www.health.ny.gov...5 - http://euthanasia.procon.org...6 - http://listverse.com...Thanks again to Varrack for the debate. The resolution is resoundingly negated. Over to Con...