Euthanasia

Ok. I didn't realize this debate was serious. But ok. You're really good by the way. Cure/ Depression As you can see my opponent only keeps mentioning one disease and, that is depression. Sure, depression can be treated. NOT CURED. Yet what about the endless list of still incurable diseases. I thought the cure for cancer was suppose to come in 1985? No wait, 1990? Then 2000? No, 2010? Yet it still has not arrived. Same with HIV/ AIDS, after 32 years of research many people suffering are still patiently waiting. Sure, let them suffer until 2025 when the cure is "predicted" to come. Adding to the argument of depression, consider this, Oregon is one of the three states where euthanasia is legal. My opponent fears that it could be abused. Yet less than 300 people have died from euthanasia from 1998-2005. If people have the chance to abuse it, why haven't they done it. If people with depression used euthanasia, that number should be higher, but it's not. Saving Lives: My opponent also mentioned that the organ donations are very insignificant, and that it leads to a vicious cycle of one dies, one lives. Unfortunately, for him, that is not the case. According to, Orgondonor.gov, statistics show that right now, 114,869 people are in need of an organ. 18 of them die each day from it. He also says euthanasia is a cycle. In actually, 1 donor saves 8 lives, so it's not "one dies, one lives". If we give the incentive that people who use euthanasia must also donate, thousands of lives would be saved. CON, mentioned adding 80 would be nothing. Sure, it may seem that way. Yet, the cost of those 80 indivuals can reach millions. Which we taxpayers must pay for even though, cure is far away. That money can be used to treat patients with actual cureable diseases. This leads to my next argument. Cost: Health care costs can be reduced, which would save estates and lower insurance premiums.It's no secret that premiums on health care have took a major jump in costs over the last decade. Some workers around the country are going on strike simply to protest the increase in health care costs. We regularly debate how to provide cheaper prescription drugs, care for the uninsured, and fight the skyrocketing costs. Anything we can do to reduce that burden helps. Consider the huge cost of keeping a dying patient alive for several months. You must pay for x-rays, lab tests, drugs, hospital overhead, medical staff salaries, etc. It is not unheard of for medical costs to equal $50,000-100,000 to keep some patients alive. We have to ask ourselves, is this the best way to spend our money when the patient himself would like to die? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the patients that can be saved? You also have to consider the drag on a dying patient's estate. Most people want to be able to leave their children and grandchildren with something when they die. Medical costs eat into that estate. It's totally unreasonable to pour this kind of money into patients that just want to end their suffering. As Medicare, Medicare, and other government programs accelerate the United States towards bankruptcy, anything that causes a decrease in total costs must be a consideration. Pain/ Family: Patients can die with dignity rather than have the illness reduce them to a shell of their former selves.Dying patients sometimes lose all ability to take care of themselves. Vomit, drool, urine, feces, and other indignities must be attended to by nursing assistants. Alzheimer's patients suffer from progressively worse dementia that causes memory loss and incoherent rambling. Virtually all people want others' last memory of them to be how they once were, not what they ended up being. For example, Ronald Reagan died of Alzheimer's. He and his family would like people to remember the brave man that stared down the Soviets, told Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall", and as the "The Great Communicator", provided historic leadership. Other patients and families have the same wishes for themselves. We should let people die with their dignity, pride, and self-worth intact. What kind of family wants to see a loved one be subjected to these degrading and humiliating conditions. Surely, it IS stressful for a family. Right: The "Right to die" isn't in the constitution, yet the "Right to suffer" isn't there either. "Give me liberty or give me death" one of the most famous lines in American history, denying someone euthanasia is denying liberty so what comes, death. What is in the in the constitution is, religious fredoom. Denying a person to kill themselves is unconstituional. Prevention of suicide is a violation of religious freedom.A significant part of religious beliefs involves what happens in the afterlife. By preventing suicide, the government is imposing its religious belief that suicide is a sin. No one knows for sure what happens after we die; it should be up to the individual to determine what he or she believes. The government cannot legislate morality. Sources: Balanced Politics Organdonor.gov Thank you. Oh and I was joking about I'd rather see a dead man. It was sarcarsm, guess it's hard to tell from text. :)