Topic that was agreed upon in a message

"Over the years we have experienced many "miracles" in medicine, many people, even in very recent years and months, who were expected to die, miraculously survived. If these people were to have been subjected to Euthanasia they would be dead now. These incidents have taught us to never lose hope and euthanasia is the very symbol of hopelessness." They do. Sometimes. If I have a one in a million chance of survival if I jump out of a plane at 30000 feet, without a parachute (someone has survived this), it doesn't mean it is okay because there MIGHT be a miracle. Yes, miracles occur, but the thing that makes it a miracle is that it almost never happens. If miracles always happened they wouldn't be miracles. Otherwise every time I recover from a cold, I would be praising the Lord for something insignificant. Anyways, miracles usually only happen to those with extreme faith. These people would most likely not take advantage of euthanasia, and let the Lord take care of them. " Traditionally, doctors swear an oath when they receive their medical degree. This oath includes the phrase 'I shall do no harm'; proposing suicide is a direct violation of that oath." Make the nurse do it. Seriously we should not let a silly oath written by some dude who died 3000 years ago prevent us from doing the right thing. The right thing is to let a person have control over their own life, and let them end it when they want. "My opponent and I are Christians. The vast majority of churches and church bodies, object to Euthanasia. They do so, because Christians believe that 'God gave us life and God should be the one to take it away'. This amongst others, means that no human should have the power of life and death. This is especially true in the case of doctors that may be pessimistic at points and can easily be influenced by third parties, such as health insurance companies (that want to avoid extra funds for treatment being wasted and apply Euthanasia)." Churches are wrong sometimes. Churches have also justified slavery, the Spanish Inquisition, and many other unfortunate events. Furthermore, the separation of church and state means that what churches think shouldn't affect policy. We are not forcing them to use euthanasia, a religious person can certainly let the Lord handle things. "Certain patients, doctors and family may be pessimistic. For example if you tell a patient that he will die in three months because of some disease and that the pain will gradually increase, until he/she dies. This might make them pessimistic and because they might fear the pain, they might choose to be mercy killed in order to avoid it. This will eliminate all slim chances of survival and rob the pessimistic patient of his/her last days with the people he/she loves." It is the patient's choice. If he or she wants to die, we can't interfere simply because a doctor may be a pessimist. Also, we could write into the law that they must consult more than one doctor. This contention can be avoided by a euthanasia law if we want it to. "My opponent states that it is a human's right to decide to be killed when terminally ill. I agree with this to a certain point. First of all, certain things may effect the patient's and the doctor's judgment. Some examples of this are: pessimism, fear of pain and hopelessness in the case of the patient. Pressure to have funds and treatment rooms cleared for other patient, by hospitals and influence and bribes from health insurance companies (that to avoid extra funds for treatment being wasted and apply Euthanasia) for doctors. The above proves that doctor and patient may make mistakes in judgment that will result in the patient to be subjected to Euthanasia, and since death is irreversible possible mistakes can not be recalled. In conclusion, we might have the right to euthanasia, but we many times be wrong in our judgment and situations like the one explained in my 4th contention may occur, that may cost us our lives (in the worst scenario) or are last days with our family and friends (in the best)." We can get multiple opinions like I said. The more people involved the less corrupt it will be. There is a workable solution to this issue without banning euthanasia. "True, it is consistent in a way, but utilitarianism is nothing but a philosophical theory and there are many contradictory theories that prove that Euthanasia is immoral. In philosophy you usually can't say that something is wrong of right. For example utilitarianism is no more right or wrong than the philosophical theory of egoism. So, Euthanasia may be consistent with ONE philosophical point of view, utilitarianism [type of consequentialism], but it is contradictory to virtue ethics and deontological ethics as well as some types of consequentialism. Therefore, my opponent's point proves little." My opponent is incorrect. The whole purpose of philosophy is to disprove theories and find new ones. The goal of a philosopher is to seek the truth. Utilitarianism is a superior theory, as not following it would result in more bad than good occurring. It is common sense to say that we should have as much good as possible. That's basically what utilitarianism says. "My opponent tries to prove his pint by providing one example. In the specific example (dying driver), the right course of action (morally and legally) is to call an ambulance and get him to the hospital and perhaps his life will be saved. Therefore, my opponent's example lacks moral and legal judgment and devalues life and science (medicine), by losing hope to soon and not giving medicine a chance to save a life, (even if chances are that it won 't succeed, the huge value of a human life still makes it worth it!)." My opponent would let a dying man suffer longer than necessary. There is absolutely no hope in this man's survival. Is it just to let him suffer needlessly?