Euthanasia

Thank you, it has been very interesting so far! Round 4 is summing up the points. This will be addressing your points very quickly: Yes, all type of euthanasia should be covered. I will cover all of them below. Just because I want euthanasia legalized doesn't mean I want all types legalized. -Involuntary euthanasia should not be legalized, but it is the only form that I do not agree with. Just because I don't agree with one sub-section of euthanasia out of the three, doesn't mean it should stay illegal. - Non-voluntary euthanasia is a slippery slope, but if regulated, it is not as problematic as con says it is. - Active euthanasia should be legalized, there is no good reason why it should not be legalized. Like con did, you could use the excuse that they may feel depressed, but how many people with arthritis take it to the extent they want death. Probably none. I have arthritis in my knees, and I know as I get older, it will get worse, but I don't want death. That is a poor defense why it should not be legalized. Also, if they had chronic arthritis, depending on where it is, they could do it themselves, which is suicide, which is totally irrelevant to this issue. - I have presented cases, of right to die cases, whereas con has presented none. These cases back up what I am saying, and help support my argument. -Con says false dignity is preserved. How? Let me take you back to what I said in round 2 "If you allow people the right to die it can give the family of the deceased some comfort that they did not suffer anymore than they needed to, and that they were in the comfort of their family, you would also be able to say a final goodbye to your loved ones. Euthanasia also allows the deceased to retain their dignity, so they don't have to be seen helpless, suffering and in chronic pain." I can't see how this is undignified. -Con keeps on bringing up the issue of pain. What if people are paralyzed from the neck down, have been for 2 years to try and cope with it, but they can't. What do you do? Euthanasia wasn't their first option, but do you still tell them no? -Yes, you can get drugs to help with the pain, but for the last few months of their life, who would want to be living on painkillers? They maybe living, but they have no life. There is a difference between living and having a life. Also, painkillers would eventually become ineffective towards the last few weeks virtually. - Con also says that it is murder? What if it requested? Active euthanasia. What if they ask to die, how is it murder? - Con also says it is the killing of healthy people. I don't quite understand this position. I have never heard of someone healthy wanting euthanasia. Even if this point were true, they wouldn't need euthanasia as they would be capable of doing it themselves. - You measure the amount of pain they are in 1) when the strong painkillers become ineffective 2)They cry all the time they are in constant pain 3) They ask for death, not just once, but repeatedly. Can mentions risky again, but regulation is possible. This point covers your point 3 and 4. How pain should be measured. I have addressed the previously dropped point, cons argument is invalid. Apologizes for the drop. -It is the governments job to grant people life, but what about rights. What's the point in living if you have no rights? Why shouldn't death be a right to people. If they want it, just because they are 'disabled' doesn't mean they shouldn't be ignored. -The 'slippery slope' argument is invalid as you can have regulation. Which con failed to reply to. Most of your points I can use this argument for, when people request it, regulate how long they must live like it before they are granted it. Family use it to their advantage, this is rare cases, but you can regulate this too. - Medical advances I will address now (sorry for the drop): Yes, but when will you be able to cure paralyzed people, totally eradicate cancer, cure people of a stroke that has totally made them helpless. This would take YEARS. So why not legalize it from now till then? This argument is also invalid. -Only have euthanasia for certain illnesses, this will stop it being over used. Cons arthritis argument is invalid here too. MAIN POINTS WHY IT SHOULD BE LEGALIZED: 1)Gives the patient their rights 2)Death shouldn't always be regarded as a bad thing 3)It can be regulated- (Con dropped this point) 4)It at least gives the patient a choice, whereas non legalization does not - (Con dropped this point) 5)Allowing euthanasia frees up scare medical resources - (Con dropped this point to a certain extent) 6)If there is no harm to others, why not legalize it - (Con dropped this point) 7)People have an explicit right to die - (Con dropped this point) 8) The state have no right to interfere - (Con dropped this point) 9)It does give the patient their dignity 10)Is death such a bad thing? 11) People shouldn't be forced to stay alive (the argument of life is precious is invalid to a point) 12) Gives the family of the deceased some comfort of the deceased knowing they didn't go through more pain than is necessary 13) We euthanize animals -why not humans? It isn't regarded as cruel when we put an animal to sleep. (Con dropped this point) 14) Why do we have the right to say whether someone should be forced to stay alive against their wishes? Why do we presume that we know what is better for them, and keep them alive? What if they know what is better for themselves? (Con dropped this point) Con said in round 3 " just as many, if not more, reasons why euthanasia should not be legal". You put 6 summed up reasons why is should not be legalized. I have put 14 summed up reasons as well. I believe I have the most reasons in my favor for why it should be legalized. Thank you for a very enjoyable debate, I hope you have enjoyed it as much as I have.