Voluntary Euthanasia

Thanks for the debate bsh1! ObservationsI conceded these by agreeing to them in Round 2, but they were not dropped, if that is what Pro implies.C1. Human DignitySC1. Autonomy and Dignity(a/b) The case against autonomy in eugenics is a bit different from Pro's perception of it. To deny the choice to be euthanized isn't to be against *all* forms of choice, but rather the ones that infringe upon the person. In my earlier line, I did not say that it is unethical to trust people to choose but rather to *blindly* give out trust. "Blindly" implies that the decision requires moral analysis and is more serious than one of your casual everyday decisions. There is a huge difference between being forbidden the right not to give to charity and to be responsible for one's own death.(c) Pro states that the ability for people to make free decisions allows them to grow as individuals and understand the ethical difference between right and wrong. While this may be true, it is irrelevant in the case of euthanasia because once an individual affirms their decision to be eliminated, they *cannot* grow any longer because they are no longer living. Once their choice is complete, they have no future to look forward to and can never understand why their decision was morally right or wrong. They can never feel guilt or remorse any longer, so this point does not apply and is rather moot.(d) it is true that the government does not prohibit the freedom to choose between right and wrong, but we must understand the nature of the legal consequences tied to certain actions. Since it is impossible to completely eliminate crime, no secular institution actually attempts to do this, but rather penalize such actions. The reason for penalizing these actions is to prevent future immoral actions from occurring and to deter any wrongdoings committed in society. Pro argues that the child does not have full autonomy, but I disagree. Every child has as much independent freedom as adults do. The difference is that children are unable to make fully moral decisions and have a limited knowledge of their future and what would happen in a different t scenario. Since euthanasia patients may or may not be (it is impossible to confirm) able to make the *best* decisions for their future, and do not know what time will bring and whether their decision is in their best interest, the child example still applies.SC3. SufferingOf course, suffering can be bad. It can be pointless, yet it may not always be. Tying back to earlier points, the inability to know the future disallows people to know whether or not their suffering is good. It cannot be said, for example, that extensive pain was never helpful to anyone. There are many instances in which suffering could be a benefit, so to assume that it absolutely cannot be and go ahead with euthanasia is outright wrong. This decision is based off of the idea that all suffering is bad, which it surely isn't.If suffering limits choice, then we can safely say that suffering limits the ability to rationally make a moral decision. This is basically a concession of the argument that people under extensive pain cannot choose as well or wisely than in good health.Pro's make-more-suffering response is absurd. Not once have I stated that all suffering is good, but rather that it can be. The problem is that we cannot know, so making such decisions under the idea that suffering *might* have a harmful effect in the future is an unsturdy moral base for it.C2. PracticalityThis point rests on the belief that suicide is worse than euthanasia because it results in more pain. Whether slashing one's wrist is worse than making the weighty, emotionally difficult decision that affects both the patient and family members is debatable. If suicide attempts are an inevitability, that is not to say that such attempts could cease and some people choose to live their lives happily again (which some have). To euthanize someone is to assume that suicide always end fatally, which cannot be known for sure. Rather than eliminating an entire life with a single problem, why not try to make life better for the patient through palliative care instead of assuming that life cannot get better and just turn down their entire future?C3. BenefitsSC1. ReassuranceFamilies can become heartbroken from euthanasia. To take *only* the patient's status into account isn't very mindful, since euthanasia affects others and not just the patient.SC2. Religious FreedomWhat the Unitarian faith in particular thinks isn't very relevant to this discussion, since religious freedom has been reduced in this debate to what some people think they should be able to do.SC3 ResourcesAgain, reducing a little bit of debt is canceled out by the fact that life as a whole should be respected versus certain individuals who "need it more".SC4. LegalityIt is a bit of a stretch to assert that certain patients dying illegally is due to the legality of euthanasia. One example of this is not enough to affirm that it really is.Thanks Pro and to future readers!