Voluntary Euthanasia

Thanks for the intriguing case bsh1. I hope you don't mind if I borrow your formatting since I'm pretty fond of it. ;)I concur that voluntary euthanasia as opposed to other kinds of euthanasia is the matter at hand, and that for me to successfully negate the resolution I need to show that there is a lack of an ethical or logical base for euthanasia. I will now explain my case.C1. Life is ValuableSC1. Sanctity of LifeEvery human being has worth, regardless of sex, race, identity, physical capabilities, future potential, and personal characteristics. Our inherent value does not depend on anything else. It does not depend on whether we are having a good life or whether others think of us a certain way. Human life ought to be preserved because it contains immanent goodness that cannot be replaced by any other thing. Although one's value does not change whether one's motives are good or bad, innocent lives such as that of sick or injured patients do not deserve to be taken based on their measurement of their life alone.Human life is not a means to an end, but a basic good in itself. Putting life in instrumental terms is dehumanizing to the value people really hold. Philosopher Immanuel Kant taught that humans are an end in themselves and not a means to something else, such the satisfaction of others or one's personal achievements[1]. The fact that we exist gives us value regardless of any disability we have. One cannot increase or decrease their own value to make it different from someone else's; it remains the same for one's entire life. Because of this intrinsic worth, the deliberate taking of a life other than self-defense or the legitimate defense of others is not justified.SC2. Devaluation of LifePracticed euthanasia indicates that the lives of some are not worth living. It presents the picture that it is better to be dead than sick or disabled, and thus creates the myth that life must not have an inherent worth. This downgrades the status of the disabled and forces society to look down upon those with less ability. The devaluation of life is erroneous because it displays the image that these sick patients are less worthy of living. Societies have come to view the disabled as inferior and a burden on everyone else. Some proponents of eugenics have gone as far as saying that the weak should be eliminated. It is unjustifiable to distort the value of life based on the limitations that some people may have, and is simply unethical.C2. InterestsAnother problem with morally justifying euthanasia is that it is impossible to know whether death is the best interest of the patient or whether the patient is in the best position to properly assess him or herself. Is it ethical to place a risky and very hard choice on the person who may not be the best at deciding it under extensive pain and pressure from others? One cannot properly assess themselves psychologically, especially when it comes to the serious issue of dying. When under such pain, patients become less capable of making reasonable decisions, thus signifying the illogical nature of handing patients the choice of elimination. The worse the suffering, the less rational the patient becomes, which means that the decision to be eliminated can be easily influenced by external factors, such as family members encouraging the patient to be euthanized,Euthanasia is unnecessary because there are many scenarios in which it may done out of a wrong decision. Suppose that life for the patient may not be worth living now but well worth it in the future. Suppose the patient is depressed and thinks life is much worse than it actually is, or that the patient is confused and unable to make sensible judgments. There are also possibilities that the doctor's diagnosis could be wrong or that there are non-fatal options available that the doctor is unaware of. Eugenics is not necessary because neither the doctor or patient, especially the patient, are completely knowledgeable of the situation at hand. Had the patient simply been in a tough passing phase of the disease but felt better afterwards, would euthanasia had been justified earlier? No, and since everyone has such limited knowledge of other means, their mistakes, or of the future, it is safe to say that euthanasia is never justified at all. When one cannot know, the benefit of the doubt should go towards preserving life.C3. Unethical SimilitudesSC1. Connection to SuicideSome more ethical issues that exist with euthanasia is how it is an extension of suicide. Our society largely condemns suicide baiting and believes that choosing to kill oneself regardless of their circumstances is wrong. Organizations such as the Suicide Prevention Center are dedicated to help people who are severely depressed or in pain. Family and friends become devastated following the self-inflicted death of someone they know and love. The important distinction that should be made here is that the only difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia is that the person who is helping with the death is a physician. Ethics should not be changed based on someone's profession or medical experience, because in both scenarios an innocent life is taken. The role of doctors and physicians is to save life and make life better for others, which means that assisting in death is a direct contradiction of the duty of these medical workers. Euthanasia is not justified simply because a physician is involved, nor is it if the physician is granted legal permission to do so, because I have shown above, humans have intrinsic value that should not be stamped out simply because someone wishes that it ought to be.SC2. EncouragementWhat can be an influential factor in one's choice to be eliminated is the encouragement from family and friends towards the patient to carry out this deed. For someone to encourage another person to take their own life is widely frowned upon, and obviously unethical. The person has committed a serious wrong, and could even be held responsible for the life that was taken. If strong evidence shows that someone played a major role in the suicide of someone else, that person may be prosecuted by the law. California Penal Code 401 allows prosecution of people who "encourage or advise suicide"[2]. Knowing this, we must acknowledge how few differences exist between suicide baiting and someone encouraging an ill patient to be euthanized. If euthanasia is legalized or morally accepted, family members would begin to push others they know to " just have their life ended". The only noticeable difference is the presence of a physician to commit the act. Why should a legal offense be looked upon as immoral but the encouragement of a patient to be eliminated be allowed as a decisive factor in eugenic actions?SC3. Slippery SlopeThis argument doesn't necessarily contend that involuntary euthanasia will be legalized, but that the laws will be broadened to allow less and less ethical situations to be legalized in the name of euthanasia. This has happened before with other laws: "The movement from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia would be like the movement of abortion from 'only for the life or health of the mother' as was proclaimed by advocates 30 years ago to today's 'abortion on demand' even if the baby is half born"[3]. By giving too much power to those with medical professions, we may end up allowing situations to occur that we will regret. Since it is the nature of society to become more loose on laws, it is logical to say that legalizing euthanasia will result in relatively worse scenarios to occur, which we have already seen with planned parenthood laws. In fact, the Netherlands have already traveled down the slippery slope and have legalized non-voluntary euthanasia which has resulted in the deaths of thousands without their consent[4]. Thus, this argument is valid and legitimate as it illustrates the threats of law broadening.And so I negate. Over to Pro for rebuttals.= Sources =[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro...[3] http://www.euthanasia.com...[4] http://www.lifenews.com...