Euthanasia

I will begin by responding to my opponent's three contentions. Re: Contention 1 - Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. Con reports that ~900 euthanasia deaths occur per year without the consent of the one being euthanized, and half of the ones that are done go unreported. This is to be expected. I've explicitly stated that I am against euthanizing those who do not wish to be euthanized; however, I also pointed out that often the ones who ARE euthanized are not in a position to consent, because they are already extremely sick and beyond the point of regaining cognitive function. Con's very own source notes, "The reasons for not discussing the decision to end the person's life and not obtaining consent were that the patients were comatose (70% of cases) or had dementia (21% of cases) [1]. That accounts for over 90% of "non-consent" cases. While many people do not have the opportunity to provide written consent agreeing to euthanasia, that does not mean they wouldn't choose that option and haven't expressed that sentiment to a loved one. In many emergency cases, a spouse or parent has to make life-or-death decisions for a loved one for whom they have power of attorney rights or another partnership, whether or not the one in critical condition had the chance to give explicit instructions. That is common in the medical field. It's also illegal to perform this procedure on kids in certain countries, assuming they have never expressed a desire (or aren't cognizant enough to do so) in how to proceed in life/death situations. As for reporting acts of euthanasia, Con presents a study done in the Netherlands. If I did a study on behavior in South Africa, it doesn't necessarily mean the same social standards would apply in the United States. In this country doctors are subject to intense scrutiny, especially by insurance companies, and there are greater bureaucratic and balance of power checks to ensure little foul play. Either way, if the argument is that euthanasia will be done and go unreported, who is to say that doctors aren't already doing it and not reporting it here specifically because it's illegal? This isn't a good argument against legalization because it doesn't allow for criminalization to be a sufficient deterrent. Furthermore what do unreported acts have to do with the inherent morality of the act itself? Re: Contention 2 - The Slippery Slope ArgumentIt's interesting that Con presents the "slippery slope" as an argument in his favor, when it is actually one of the most popular logical fallacies. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to some significant effect, such as being given a small push over the edge of a slope and sliding all the way to the bottom. In this case, Con is arguing that legalizing euthanasia would be the small push that leads to an effect of mass murder. He is essentially saying that if we give people the opportunity to die with dignity, that their loved ones and doctors all over the country are going to start going on a killing spree and ending everyone's life prematurely. Con never provides an explanation for why medical professionals and spouses everywhere will start pulling the plug left and right on innocent patients and family members. Obviously something will become more popular when it is more readily available and there is more information. Con notes that in the past, only certain types of euthanasia were accepted but the law expanded to include more provisions. Clearly society's opinions change over time, and the law reflects a shift in social perspective. I clarified in the opening discussion of the initial debate that I support voluntary and most non-voluntary euthanasia. I do NOT agree with the social perspective that supports involuntary euthanasia (killing against one's will) or passive euthanasia, where a treatment or cure is withheld from the patient unless they agree to that voluntarily. I will not be arguing in favor of that standard. Con bringing up that some other people support this standard is completely irrelevant. Re: Contention 3 - Giving The Healing Doctor A Killing RoleCon claims that old people will be afraid of doctors because they will fear for their lives. This is a moot point. In the case that an elderly patient did not want to be euthanized, they would state that explicitly and no euthanizing would occur under my proposed legal standards (since I am against non-voluntary euthanasia). Additionally my opponent suggests that a doctor is simply incapable or unwilling to both protect and end life. First, that choice could and should easily be left up to the individual doctor. If one didn't want to euthanize, they don't have to much like doctors who choose not to perform abortions don't have to. Second, veterinarians are doctors who "put down" animals all the time. Preserving and ending life is part of their daily job. Many doctors are capable of this standard and think it is the best, most fair, decent and dignified way to care for a patient. Apparently 95% of U. S. physicians have no objection to taking someone off life support, and 82% have no objection to terminal sedation [2]. Another fun fact is that 3/4 Americans also support legalized euthanasia (though some might change their mind if you describe it as "assistied suicide" because people are emotional), and 86% support it for the terminally ill or those of whom are on life support [3]. [[ Pro's Arguments That Were Dropped By Con ]] 1. One's life belongs to one's own person. People must be free to live (and die) as they please. Exercising the right to personal autonomy is an inherent component of liberty. The state or interpersonal interference of voluntary euthanasia inhibits freedom. Inhibiting this option is selfish. 2. Not allowing someone to die with dignity might qualify as unnecessary torture. Most people make this choice as a last resort to end insufferable pain and agony. Con is suggesting people be forced to endure excruciating conditions during the last days/hours of their life. 3. If we "put down" animals to ease their pain and soften transition to death, why exclude human beings from the same consideration?4. Those who have power-of-attorney rights over someone should be able to "pull the plug" at their discretion. If these people can make life-or-death decisions for their partner/child/parent in the case of an unexpected emergency, why not in cases where the prognosis is guaranteed (probably painful) death? 5. We could/would impose strict standards overseeing the process to eliminate foul play. Apparently giving someone the option to pull the plug on a sick family member would guarantee that everyone stops feeling empathy, sadness and love toward their family, and starts feeling nothing but the intent to kill unnecessarily and wrongly. .. so Con suggests. I argued for standards to the process such as at the very least allowing for voluntary euthanasia, and ways to investigate situations of involuntary euthanasia. I am pro safeguards against any chance of someone actually trying to cause intentional harm to another. Con claims there will be a slippery slope toward a free-for-all of death, but doesn't explain how or why. 6. Many people who choose or plan on choosing euthanasia insist that the optional choice enhances the quality of their own lives. There is also evidence that this option increases the quality of end-of-life care. The dying know to make each day count and feel totally in control of how the rest of their life will proceed. This is an invaluable emotional and spiritual gift that almost rivals the gift of physical health. After all, most of us probably hope to die peacefully and painlessly.7. While you cannot put a price on life, the cost of end-of-life care is objectively not worth the money when you factor inevitability and the state of the prolonged life. It could cost tens of thousands of dollars to keep someone alive for even just a few days while they are not even aware they are alive and/or may be suffering. What's the point? 8. A Dutch report found that in 86 percent of cases, euthanasia shortened life by a maximum of a week and usually only a few hours. In other words, it was a last resort - an escape used by patients in unbearable agony who would rather that agony be ended now than in two days time. We have no reason to believe that the option would be abused. Con also challenges the stat I presented but I'll tackle statistics, studies and data more in the next round if necessary. [1] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] . http://euthanasia.procon.org...[3] . http://www.statisticbrain.com...