euthanasia should be banned

Hello! I'll be challenging my opponent and proving that Euthanasia should indeed be considered for ban. Euthanasia is a touchy subject. When we look at it objectively and across the board, i can understand the necessity for it in certain circumstances. Particularly in animal shelters to regulate the number of domestic animals without a home, or feral pets that have harmed others and may continue to do harm do to poor training. And, perhaps when used as a means of capital punishment. But, my opponent has laid out a specific instance that is up for debate, which is the euthanasia of consenting patients in a medical setting. While allowing a patient to lay in pain appears cruel and morally unjust, euthanasia provides a few arguably larger moral dilemmas. Assisted Suicide is Murder 1. Whether you are religious or not, taking another human life is murder and would make most normal people very uncomfortable. We often apply a lot of pressure on doctors and hold them in very high regards in terms of professionalism. It's hard to forget that they are human beings just like they rest of us.. they get sick and experience pain just as we all do. Behind closed doors, there may be many doctors that actually go under extremely psychological duress when losing patients. This would logically be more likely, particularly the ones they have to euthanize. As it turns out, doctors aren't made of special stuff that the rest of us aren't. A little research will show that there are a very large amount of assistance articles, techniques, and therapy specifically for doctors in dealing with death. one example being : (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) thankfully a lot of them manage. But some can't handle it as well as they thought they would. Pushing down psychological stress and resisting the need to grieve. I'm sure i don't need to clarify that a stressed out/depressed doctor would most likely do more harm than good. Then there are those that eventually cope a bit too well and become desensitized. These unscrupulous doctors are also dangerous because then they will see your dying grandma as just another number. Quick to "pull the plug" and will be more impersonal in terms of helping you deal with the situation. 2. Doctors take a Hippocratic oath. it is their responsibility to best help and save lives and taking them directly contradicts that. This in turn degrades the entire integrity of the practice. 3. Euthanasia is a slippery slope. With it, it's only a matter of time before we may not even need consent and the line becomes blurred in who qualifies for euthanasia and who doesn't. It would not be irrational to in vision a near future where we may skip some steps and euthanize people who may have been able to at least received "tolerable" levels of treatment. Legal Concerns 1. While it is a nice fantasy that people are mostly good and selfless, we are often hit with the reality that this is not the case. Especially when it comes to people with the most power. With for example the 'Baby Doe Laws of 1984,'it was decreed that a terminally ill,disabled, or predicted handicapped child shall not be ignored or refused the best possible treatment for their conditions. In this case, the physicians requested that the parents withhold maximum treatment (surgery) because even if the surgery were to be a success, the child would still be severely mentally challenged. (http://embryo.asu.edu...) This is just 1 example of how much we need some restrictions in place to stop some hospitals from killing off people just to save a few bucks. 2. Speaking of saving a few bucks, this also translates to the quality of palliative care. It's hypothesized that with euthanasia in practice, the quality of life care would see a major decrease. Which seems economically practical, but ethically unattractive. 3. in regards to Living Wills: "Not only are we awash in evidence that the prerequisites for a successful living wills policy are unachievable, but there is direct evidence that living wills regularly fail to have their intended effect... When we reviewed the five conditions for a successful program of living wills, we encountered evidence that not one condition has been achieved or, we think, can be. First, despite the millions of dollars lavished on propaganda, most people do not have living wills... Second, people who sign living wills have generally not thought through its instructions in a way we should want for life-and-death decisions... Third, drafters of living wills have failed to offer people the means to articulate their preferences accurately... Fourth, living wills too often do not reach the people actually making decisions for incompetent patients... Fifth, living wills seem not to increase the accuracy with which surrogates identify patients' preferences." ( Angela Fagerlin, PhD - Core Faculty Member, Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar Program, University of Michigan Medical School) (Carl E. Schneider, JD - Chauncey Stillman Professor for Ethics, Morality, and the Practice of Law, University of Michigan Law School"Enough: The Failure of the Living Will," Hastings Center Report 2004) Religion Finally, in the U.S., nearly 80% of the people whom identify themselves with a religious affiliation are some denomination of christian. nearly 5% are Jewish (which is virtually identical in terms of general messages and affiliated opinion. While atheism is growing, this country is still largely dominated by Christianity and as such, uphold some of it's views on morality. Therefore, Euthanasia on a religious perspective is frowned upon. So weather you are religious or not, at least in this country, to not have it banned is likely to inspire active protest and the like against it. Simply put, it wouldn't be popular enough to be legalized throughout the entire country.