Winter Regular tournament R1: Resolved, the USFG should legalize Euthanasia

Thanks for the response. Let me clarify something for the readers that was brought up last round by lannan13. First of all, me and my opponent seem to be in completely different realms of debate. When mentioning Involuntary, and non-voluntary Euthanasia in the opening round, I am speaking in terms of a legal viewpoint. My opponents statistics that I am disputing are taking place not only outside of the United States (thus not even on topic), but are taking place in an illegal realm. My opponent is trying to play it off like I am supporting Doctor’s Euthanizing patient’s for their own agenda’s, which I am strictly against. So what does Euthanasia look like in a legal setting? This point hasn’t been discussed in this debate yet. As I mentioned in argument 3 it would have to be regulated. However Euthanasia taking place without the patient’s explicit permission could happen based on a multitude of scenarios and reasons. For example, if the patient is not mentally coherent enough to make the decision. Or if it is in the hands of the patient’s caretakers or the responsible party in charge of the patient’s medical expenses. In-voluntary meaning the patient doesn’t have caretakers in charge of the medical bills, and it is up to the doctor who has knowledge and experience in the area to determine whether or not medical resources are worth a month or two of extra life. These are just a few specific hypotheticals, but it would be majorly up to the law makers to decide how regulations would be handled. This is explicitly why I said “In some cases” in round one. So in summary, my opponent cannot just dismiss my arguments against him because he is drawing a conclusion from an illegal standpoint, whereas this debate is about whether the USFG should “legalize Euthanasia”. The resolution was specifically worded to avoid this issue being manipulated and spun to mean what my opponent wants it to mean. Resource DelegationMy opponent "Throws my argument out of the debate" because of semantics. Explaining the difference in who actually does the killing does not make resources any less expensive, or the issue any less topical. Going on to costs, I have confronted my opponent about mis-information. The source he posted didn't actually have any of the information he claimed it did about the cost of lethal drugs being more expensive then the cost of keeping a patient alive. In the comments section he admits that he made a mistake and posted a new source showing that the drug is not as expensive was originally proposed. With this, I'll consider the argument conceded rather than accuse him of conduct violation in mis-leading the viewers. Thank you lannan13 for being honest. Here is the original source: https://public.health.oregon.gov... Here is the new source and quote he mentioned in the comments:"Savings to governments could become a consideration. Drugs for assisted suicide cost about $35 to $45, making them far less expensive than providing medical care. This could fill the void from cutbacks for treatment and care with the 'treatment' of death."-- International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide"Frequently Asked Questions," www.internationaltaskforce.org(accessed May 27, 2010)http://euthanasia.procon.org...Quality over QuantityI have no clue what my opponent is talking about or if he even really understood my argument here. The laws against Euthanasia actually have nothing to do with abuse prevention as my opponent seems to believe. It has to do with a very old (in my opinion misguided) idea of morals and ethics, and the breach of the medical code of ethics. My opponent is shifting his stance from round 3 where he mentions doctors will be afraid of Euthanasia. yet is now saying that it will be mis-used? Which is it, will doctors being morally inclined not to commit Euthanasia, or will they run around mis-using it Willy nilly? If there is a middle ground, there is nothing that regulated Euthanasia will not solve. With any law there will always be cases of mis-use, that does not mean the law makers stand by the mis-users decisions, and that the mis-user would not be punished. Euthanasia Regulation My opponent resorts back to semantical arguments mentioned earlier here, but then entirely contradicts himself with his death with dignity source he posted above. The source itself uses the two hand in hand and almost illustrates them as being the same thing! It's like my opponent is avoiding the argument by trying to pretend that PSA is something so different and scary. Why? My opponent is dodging the issue of explaining why. At this point in time, my opponent has given us 0 reason to see why regulations would not work in the united states. Maybe some examples of where regulation has failed, like with Colorado's drug legalization- Oh wait... ;-)So even with Pro's "regulations" we won't be able to actually be able to properly help them, but kill them.Yes, lannan, that is the point of Euthanasia is it not? We are helping them from suffering. I have no idea where you are going with this, or if you are just typing words for the sake of typing them.Passive EuthanasiaAgain, not sure whether my opponent fully understands this point. I also extend across my arguments from last round that highlight the importance of seeing a Palliative Specialist which these cases have dropped to minuscule numbers. This is important as it helps evaluate the patient and their state. Euthanasia skips over the Palliative Specialist and has the doctor kill the patient at command. This has nothing to do with Passive Euthanasia. In this point we are beyond the point of fixing a patients case, they are for sure going to die, and it's just a matter of time at this point. The entire premise of this point is saying that patients who are for sure going to die, will die anyway, so why not cut off the last few months of their pain and suffering, saving tons of resources, misery, pain, heartache, etc for someone who is for sure, 100% diagnosed that they going to die.Over to lannans arguments. Framework My opponent is still proposing the holocaust is involuntary Euthanasia. I have no intention to debate that the holocaust was justified. That is not what In-voluntary Euthanasia is, and my opponent is continuing with a non-sense spheal that it is. I am not arguing for non-medical mass murder. The definition of Euthanasia was clearly stated earlier, and we should stick to it.Unreported Euthanasia Con States Europe has more liberal policies on Euthanasia and that the US would strive to emulate this. Why? Why, if legalized, does it have to be liberal, rather than strictly regulated and controlled? Also why is Europe the only path the United States would follow? No basis for this claim was given. Slippery Slope *Yawn* This argument is a repeat of his Hitler and holocaust argument, making a false claim that Euthanasia is something that takes place outside of a medical setting. Euthanasia isn't killing children unless it is in a *Legal* life threatening medical situation . Non-definitional, non topical, and manipulative. Also Euthanasia isn't open heart surgery, that is correct. Open heart surgery is a hit or miss thing, and often is something that if done right can guarantee a persons longevity. In the case of Euthanasia, a person is going to die and they are going to die painfully in most cases. If a doctor stops that pain through Euthanasia, that qualifies as "Curing" the patient to me. The doctor's own ideals are up to him. But if Euthanasia is legalized, doctors will either have to suck it up or the hospital will find some other doctor that can commit the Euthanasia. It's not like they are taking an axe and butchering the patient.Self Owernship and sickness My opponent talks about rationalism and quote Kant. My opponent seems to think I am coming from a bleeding heart perspective, which is entirely not the case. It is 100%. We see an animal dying and suffering, we generally will put it out of it;s misery (unless you have psychopathic tendencies and would prefer to watch it suffer). It seems logical that this rationale be applied to humans does it not? Suffering is a waste of life, and resources. Pain and suffering is really only the secondary value I am supporting, logic and rationality is primary in these key factors. So what state of mind does one need to be in to not want to die under extreme pain? We are human, but humans are animals, and we operate off of instinct just like any other animal. We react to pain the same, and have the benefit of being intelligent to know when life is being wasted and to be Euthanized would be an easier route for oneself, and perhaps in many cases, their families medical bills. Conclusion My opponent and I obviously have different ideas of what Euthanasia is, and have wasted a big part of this debate not understanding each other. However I feel I have won the important arguments. My opponent ceded in the comments that Lethal Dosage was less expensive. My opponent hasn't demonstrated how Euthanasia would not be properly regulated, and my opponent never argued that pain and suffering can be remissed through pouring medical resources into a dying patient for no reason. Under the lifestyle of the arguments I have put up, I think it is more than safe to assume Euthanasia would work if legalized. Thanks lannan, and good luck in the voting period.