Legalizing Euthanasia

Before I state my conclusion, I will refute my opponent"s contentions: My opponent"s first contention states how everyone has the right to die. However, euthanasia is not entirely decided by the person who wants to exercise their right to die; information is often distorted, thus compelling a person to proceed with euthanasia without their pure will. Too much power is placed on doctors since patients and their families proceed with euthanasia strongly based on the information provided by doctors. Therefore, if doctors-consciously or unconsciously-neglect to acquaint patients on possible diagnoses, prognoses, available treatments, etc., then the patients are not getting the full picture. Therefore, patients may choose to proceed with euthanasia, but not out of there pure will since essential information to render their decision could easily be missing. Deciding to kill yourself through euthanasia is an irreversible commitment that should never be made when you are not entirely medically-informed. This problem was especially apparent when Germany legalized the use of euthanasia. "The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non- Germans." My opponent"s second contention fails to acknowledge the fact that many treatments to alleviate pain and suffering exist; receiving euthanasia and dying slowly in unrelieved suffering are not the only two options. "Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available." (Dr. Peter Saunders, pHD) This is apparent in the hospice movement, which has enabled patients" symptoms to be managed either at home or in a caring in-patient facility. Mesothelioma cancer, a disease my opponent mentioned, has numerous palliative treatments, such as surgery, radiation therapy, and medications. And these treatments continue to advance. This is not to deny that there are many patients currently dying in homes and hospitals who are not benefiting from these advances. There are indeed many having suboptimal care. This is usually because facilities do not exist in the immediate area or because local medical practitioners lack the training and skills necessary to manage these patients properly. The solution to this is to make appropriate and effective care and training more widely available, not to give doctors the easy option of euthanasia. In this contention, my opponent also mentions how a good government should not allow its people to suffer. However, the government in this case is prioritizing the development of Palliative Medicine (which develops the medical field) over allowing patients to kill themselves through euthanasia that most probably is not even out of their free will. In the long run, developing the medical field is much better. Like my opponent"s first contention, my opponent"s third contention can be similarly refuted. Patients who decide to proceed with euthanasia are not entirely acting out of free will, since they may be making this decision out of insufficient medical information. This is a result of placing too much power on doctors who can-consciously or unconsciously-neglect to tell essential information that is needed to decide whether or not a patient would like to kill him/herself. Furthermore, my opponent seems to forget that euthanasia can be applied to patients who are in "an irreversible coma." Applying euthanasia in this scenario certainly does not abide by the definition of free will: "...the ability to act at one"s own discretion." Obtaining the person"s discretion is impossible, and therefore having anyone else (even the patient"s family) decide that person"s fate is entirely unethical since the patient is not killing him/herself out of free will. In regards to my opponent"s fourth contention, yes, it is legal to euthanize pets in SOME states, but illegal to euthanize humans in every state of the US. However, the fact that euthanizing pets is legal in some states does not justify the euthanasia of humans. As part of the debate, I could easily say euthanizing pets alongside humans should be illegal because of the way in which it threatens the value of life and medical field. My opponent"s last contention states how a lot of money could be saved as a result of euthanasia. This, however, brings unnecessary suicides. By looking at high medical expenses, patients may be more pressured into killing themselves in order to decrease the burden on their families. If euthanasia was illegal on the other hand, patients would realize death is not an option, and would therefore acceptingly pay the bills and live out the rest of their lives. Consequently, the fact that money can be saved because of euthanasia is a concept that can easily be taken advantage of. In order to evade high medical bills, the families of patients may try to convince patients to consider euthanasia, and the patients, out of guilt, may accept. On the other hand, if euthanasia were illegal, this lack of human dignity would be inexistent and patients guiltlessly could live out their entire lives without an unnatural death. Lastly, my opponent states how the money could be spent on medically assisting those who have a chance to recover. This, however, contradicts evolution as a whole. Diseases and viruses are constantly developing, so once we take care of the diseases that were affecting "those who have a chance to recover," what are we supposed to do with the new diseases and viruses that develop? Simply allow the people who are infected with those diseases to kill themselves? Humans would then come to a standstill in evolution, while viruses would continue to develop. Making these incurable diseases curable through medical research is essential for human evolution to develop as a whole. Now, I"m not saying legalizing euthanasia will completely stop human evolution, but it certainly will obstruct medical research, and therefore make humans more vulnerable to future diseases. Conclusion: Based on history, we can see that legalizing euthanasia simply does not work in the long run because of the societal illnesses that inevitably ensue. Germany and Holland, two countries especially regarded for their strong pro-euthanasia policies, ended up devaluing the quality of human life and dignity. Consequently, the countries failed to make as many medical advances as the US and UK, two countries especially regarded for their strong anti-euthanasia policies. Because of this, Germany illegalized euthanasia after the loss of many peoples" dignity and a number of medical advances that could have been made if patients had decided not to kill themselves. While euthanasia is still legal in Holland, many people have rebelled against this policy due to the large number of deaths that have resulted from euthanasia without patient's" explicit consent. I would like to note that this was a wonderful debate and I had a fun time. Thank you. Sources: http://www.dw.de... http://www.asbestos.com...