Euthanasia

CorruptionMy opponent claims we could fix the problem by more laws and regulations. Though this doesn't help, at all. We could name multiple cancers and other "terminal" sicknesses, though we would still have to define terminal. And it is impossible we would include all of the terminal illnesses and, therefore, still deprive the right my opponent claims exists, and the benefit of ending "pain" would be nonexistant. Further, his point fails to rebut my point when looking at it from a proper angle. Even though terminal would likely be defined as diagnosed with death from 6 months or earlier. Basically speeding up the process. But no regulations account for false diagnosis, or the fact it is impossible to guess how long you could live. When these 6 month notions are discussed by doctors, one thing stands out: all of them agree this diagnosis is not set in stone. There is many a case where they say six months, and those not choosing suicide can live or years on end. This means corruption, if this can be labeled corruption like my opponent has, will always exist. Also, I d not see how having multiple doctors or family consent helps the problem. If both doctors think its six months, and the family says pull the plug, and as does the patient, how does this jump the hurtle of my argument? All doctors have agreed their diagnosis's can be wrong and when they say you will die in X time that the diagnosis is usually wrong [1]. I dont see how two doctors having a diagnosis that is usually an underestimate will help anything...Depression How would a psychologist matter? Even if they are depressed, it is still legal to kill them [2]. So whether or not a psychologist is present is irrelevant. And if you make it illegal to depression, his is a contradiction to your own round one arguments. And, killing these people prevents proper treatment and research which in the long run harms society [2]. My opponent then claims old people have higher suicide. Guess what? I actually agree--this helps my case--this argument shows more old people are depressed... Most people with terminal illnesses are depressed... and most of them are elderly. It does not refute my case, rather is a direct line of observation supporting it [2]. My opponent then plays a false appeal to emotion. "would you rather see blood or a sleeping death!" The funny thing is, euthanasia has the same result, and not using euthanasia means no one dies. "[E]ffective psychotherapeutic treatment is possible with the terminally ill, and only irrational prejudices prevent the greater resort to such measures [and or it is irrational to kill them]."[2] -- So lets use a counter argument my opponent ignores. Would you rather have a dead man or a living man as they gave him depression medication and he gets to live for three more years?But wait, my opponent has a good point. Let him die to save him the pain! Who cares if he can be healed. Its therefore still more humane, right? This shows medical illiteracy. Proper treatment not only prolongs their life, but is effective in making pain disappear or negligible [3]. ==Summary==Euthanasia prevents proper treatment. Euthanasia does end depression, but for a price. Proper treatment^ fixes the problem and prolongs a lifeProper treatment makes that prolonged life enjoyable "[T]reatable depression, rather than the terminal illness itself, usually accounts for such a patient's expression of a wish to die"[2]==Rebuttals== ---> RightsHe claims we have a right to die with no logic or facts. He merely asserts it and asks us to agree its fact, essentially. International law writes, ‘Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law.No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life’." and later an analysis notes, ‘Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life’.[4]Just because a patient says he wants too does NOT mean he gets too. This circular reasoning my opponent uses is very weak. Conclusion:PRO has utterly failed to uphold the BOP (which I assume is even). Vote CON. [1] - http://www.euthanasia.com...[2] - http://www.nrlc.org...[3] - http://www.nrlc.org...[4] Dr. Brian Pollard "Human rights and Euthansia" 1998