Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice

Thank you for your response, pro. I have absolutely no problem with the brevity of your response. It is completely understandable. R1) Hippocratic Oath Pro is correct in saying that I cite the Hippocratic Oath as one of the many reasons why euthanasia should not be legalized. The Hippocratic Oath, under law, does actually have that power because all physicians must swear to abide and follow the tenets listed in it. Since the physicians are promising to follow it under oath, it certainly does have the legal objective authority necessary to thwart the act of euthanasia. Solely breaking the Hippocratic Oath has no direct consequences, per se, but it is almost always deemed as malpractice. Euthanasia is no different. As mentioned in the previous round of my debate, the reason that this tenet cannot be subject to such drastic transformation is due to stare decisis. The Supreme Court has overturned the other tenets that have changed due to overwhelming evidence of pragmatism, meaning that they no longer applied to modern day practice. However, though you say that "we have the technology to perform the painless 'mercy' killing of the terminally ill," the right to death still has not been established, and thus it still implies a textualist interpretation. R2) Human dignity By using pro's definition of the word "dignity," we see that keeping euthanasia illegal actually helps maintain human dignity, unlike the assertions pro made. Essentially, when a doctor performs euthanasia, he or she is saying that that person is no longer worth living. They are going to die a slow and painful death anyway, so might as well take them out quickly. However, this goes completely against human dignity! According to the definition presented in this debate, dignity is "the quality of being worthy of honor or respect." I personally find it very disrespectful to have a doctor imply that the patient is not worth the life that he or she has right to live. There is also no honor in that request, seeing that, according to Merriam-Webster"s Dictionary, honor means: "respect that is given to someone (or something) that is admired." [1] If a doctor were to euthanize a patient, he or she would be saying that the law and the Hippocratic oath aren't things to be admired. As established earlier, this goes against the very basis of the physician occupation. R3) Slippery Slope The slippery slope effect I believe pro is referring to is that euthanasia will result in the legalization of murder. Please note that I never actually said this would be the case; I simply stated that a slippery slope is currently happening that is making the legalization of murder potentially much more acceptable. I am saying that when indirect becomes direct and abnormal becomes normal, laws will be compromised. An example of this can be seen in abortion. First off, abortion was used when doctors could detect early-term defections in the growth of children. If the unborn baby was going to have virtually no chance of living, then the doctor could perform an abortion with the consent of the parent. Then, rape and incest became legally included as well, up until now when doctors can abort a baby with "no questions asked." I'm not saying Euthanasia will follow abortion, because that definitely is a slippery slope. However, I am implying that when rules and barriers are broken, there is historic evidence that would demonstrate an unwise compromise of ethics. R4) Palliative Care Pro seems to be taking a cost-efficient stance to euthanasia in this rebuttal. While he makes some valid points as to how relatively inexpensive euthanasia is to end of life care, he is missing the bigger picture. According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, up to 66% of people who desire euthanasia claim the right to die in order not to cause their family the financial burden. [2] Therefore, more and more patients are giving up their lives to try to help their loved ones. Again, one could argue that if it is their choice to do so, then why stop them? Well, basically this research shows us that euthanasia isn't even mostly about life and death anymore; it's about saving money! Though money is obviously important in society, it truly is trivial when compared to the life of a loved one. Euthanasia seems to be putting money on an equally high (and slightly higher) pedestal than life itself. That is undoubtedly scary and morally incorrect. Also, pro needs to be careful and watch how he words his phrases here. He says, 'If Con wants us to buy his argument, here, he needs to show *why* euthanasia causing a decline in palliative is a bad thing which warrants the banning of euthanasia." From a legal standpoint, I don't need to prove or show why euthanasia causing the decline of palliative care warrants the banning of euthanasia, because euthanasia is mostly illegal anyway. The topic of this debate is: "Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice." Since it is mostly illegal, pro most realize that I do not have to prove why it should be banned due to stare decisis. I have, however, defended my stance and pro's points have been refuted as well. I urge a con vote. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.life.org.nz...