Euthanasia

I will present an overview, address my own case, and rebut your case, in that order. OVERVIEW We agreed that the term "euthanasia" applied to all the various subsets thereof. The topic, which reads: "euthanasia should be legalized in the UK" consequently indicates that the Pro side must advocate for all forms of euthanasia included under than umbrella term. In other words, in the Pro world, euthanasia and all of the different types of it that it implies, must be made legal, including involuntary euthanasia. This is what I stated in my first observation: "Euthanasia has many subsets, as noted in Round One. We agreed that the term 'euthanasia' applied to all of those subsets, and consequently, if euthanasia is made legal, than so are all of those subsets. " This was never contested. Therefore, my argument is that because many of the various forms of euthanasia pose serious problems, "euthanasia" as a whole should not be legalized, because the term is too broad. This also means that I'm not saying specific types of euthanasia shouldn't be legal or decriminalized, merely that "euthanasia" as a whole is wrong, which is what this debate is about. However, many of my point, including my contentions three and four, do pertain to all forms of euthanasia, but are not necessary, as a result, to meet my burden. DEFENSE OF THE CON One: The first thing to state is that the Pro, in the first line of round three, essentially concedes my first contention. This means, that under the burden I established in my overview, we should automatically vote Con, because voting Pro would legalize murder, essentially opening up Pandora's Box. The harms posed by the legalization of murder far outweigh the benefits the Pro claims it derives from euthanasia, because the Pro would be allowing healthy, possibly happy people to be wantonly slain. Two: Your argument about justifying euthanizing a patient less likely to reawaken in order to help someone more likely to do so strikes me as very antithetical to the notion of human dignity you espouse. Let's say Person A has a 3% chance of reawakening, while Person B has a 90% chance of so doing. Euthanizing Person A would be treating them as a means to an end, the end being Person B's better care. At that point, we stop seeing Person A as a human deserving of respect and dignity, but more so a burden preventing Person B's care. Person A becomes nothing more than a tool to help out Person B. Central to your argument is the idea that euthanasia accords dying people dignity; yet, in the very scenario you posit, Person A is dehumanized, reduced to little more than an encumbrance on Person B's treatment. This seems to fly in the face of human dignity. Furthermore, Pro fails to fully address my notion that non-voluntary euthanasia enables the exploitation of the comatose individual, which also runs contrary to morality and human dignity. Analysis: I think either of these two points on their own is sufficient to vote Con, as they illustrate how (1) Pro leads to a slippery slope, and how (2) Pro's core premise of "euthanasia respects human dignity" is false. Three: Even if consent were obtained beforehand, a person could change their mind but be unable to record that change prior to the event that would cause them to be euthanized. Additionally, how can any consent to euthanasia really be informed, especially when you are unaware of the circumstances that may precipitate a need for it? For instance, what if I only wished to be euthanized if it can be show I am in severe pain, but not if I'm just comatose? What then? Who's to make the call as to whether I'm in "severe pain," enough that I would've wanted to die? Can anyone accurately predict or take into account all the variables that could come into play? Four: Pro asserts, "anybody who has got a life, shouldn't be made to suffer whilst living it. " So, if I have chronic back pain or fibromyalgia or some other condition that will leave me in pain the rest of my life, I can be euthanized? That seems to be a very risky position to take, especially since many conditions that cause long-term of life-long suffering are not fatal. That goes back to my argument about, where do we draw the line--how much pain, and what type of pain (emotional, physical, terminal, non-terminal, etc. ) is enough to justify euthanasia? How do we arrive at that conclusion fairly? People can, even with the conditions I named, engage in happy and rewarding lives. I don't think it's right to deprive them of that opportunity; even if the illness is terminal, there are always things you can do to add meaning to your life. Analysis: "Four" is another great way to vote Con; if life has value such that it shouldn't be abridged, than euthanasia ought not to be legalized. Five: I don' t believe that death is a right. The basic tenet of every legitimate government is that it upholds its people's right to life. How can it fully do that, if it also accords people the right to death? Furthermore, you ask why death is such a bad thing. I argued: "death is a harm, and the moment we deny that it is a harm is the beginning of yet another slippery slope. " One might even be able to construe a right to death as a legitimate defense for murder, returning to the harms I cited in my contention one. Government's ability to protect people from threats will be hampered, because it has to allow people to die. Finally, my contention three explains why death is a bad thing as well. I think I can rephrase my example to better illustrate the crux of what I'm saying. If, one night, someone was fed up with chronic arthritis pain, or began to feel depressed, should they be permitted to demand that they be euthanized? Do they have a right to die, even if they might feel completely different tomorrow, a week from now, a month from now, etc. ? I still don't think it's safe to just let people start requesting euthanasia. Analysis: "Five" is a clear way to vote Con, as it emphasizes the slippery slope argument. RESPONSE TO THE PRO One: Insofar as you assent to the fact that euthanasia could be abused, I would say that it is not worth the risk. We should not allow people"s lives to hang on someone else's greed or spite. Even with regulations, this can't be prevented. We cannot permit lives to be taken on the basis of such base motives, as that would be in clear contravention of the notion of human dignity. Analysis: This is another reason why the Con actually respects human dignity more than the Pro. Two: Pro asserts this is an issue of choice--I disagree. I think this is an issue of life. Should we permit choice, while at the same time risking the legalization of murder, or treading down some other slippery slope? I think the cost-benefit analysis of choice vs. life favors the Con here. Three: Individual cases do not an argument make. For every case the Pro cites, I could cite other miracle cures or instances where euthanasia was a bad option. Instead, we should look to the totality of the evidence, and the likely and broader impacts of the policy of legalizing euthanasia, rather than putting forth specific cases as evidence. DROPS BY PRO One: My arguments about miracle cures and medical advancements were never addressed. As long as there is a chance, however slight, that someone could improve in the future, they should not be euthanized. Two: Pro's case is predicated on individuals suffering. Yet there are medications to alleviate pain, and the comatose are not necessarily suffering. If the pain is controllable or nonexistent, euthanasia should not occur. As I stated earlier: "Euthanasia may create the illusion that dignity is preserved, and it might be a nice euphemism for the family to hide behind, but ultimately, someone has died, and a life has been lost. If we truly accord human life dignity, we would not take the step of violating it, especially when there are ways to cope with pain. " Three: Pro drops my point that there is no fair and just way of determining how much pain, and what type of pain, would justify euthanasia. Without being able to do this, how can we say when its justified? Yet, without doing this, we cannot know if euthanasia was right or proportional in any particular instance, or if it was used in a fair fashion.