Legalizing Euthanasia

INTRODUCTION Thank you for your argument. Now, the fun time: REBUTTAL “"in an irreversible coma." It is impossible to obtain the patients permission in the latter scenario since the patient is fully unconscious. Therefore, killing the patient in the latter scenario is unethical because every person is entitled to whether or not they wish to die by unnatural causes (euthanasia being the unnatural cause). A doctor has no right to kill a patient without their direct consent, and if the patient is in a coma, that consent is impossible to obtain; therefore, proceeding with euthanasia is unacceptable.” Actually, the doctor does have the right to proceed! The patient’s family is usually the ones who have to make these decisions if that patient has no ability to make decisions for their own. Example: I read a scenario in a book where a little girl was in a irreversible coma and her mother had made the decision to take her off life support because to keep her alive but in a coma forever was costing way too much. “a coma (from the Greek κQ82;μα coma, meaning "deep sleep") is a state of unconsciousness lasting more than six hours, in which a person: cannot be awakened; fails to respond normally to painful stimuli, light, or sound; lacks a normal sleep-wake cycle; and, does not initiate voluntary actions.” {1} Hear that? “Is in a state of unconsciousness.” Ok so what does that mean? Well, consciousness means: “the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.” {2} That means that unconsciousness means that you are not aware of anything, you can not hear, see, feel, or taste anything. You do not respond to anything. So if you are in this state for your whole life, then what better are you than dead? “there were over 3,000 deaths from euthanasia in the Netherlands in 1990. More than 1,000 of these people were in a coma. Thus, it can be easily be said that some of those 1,000 people did not want to die of an unnatural cause, but they had no say in their fate, since euthanasia was applied nevertheless.” Read what I just said in why past rebuttal. See? That example of the Netherlands giving Euthanasia to 1,000 of those people (in coma’s) is what should and did happen. With the consent of family, it is absolutely fine! Now, you said that doctors may gain too much power from euthanasia, but euthanasia is not up to the doctor, it is up to the patient or patient’s family. You also said that information may be distorted. However, new medicines may fail and/or make the disease worse. Also, many medicines have horrible side effects that could possibly harm the patient or make them in even worse pain when taken too much, or taken with other drugs. You see, everyone makes mistakes. So why can’t the medicine be at fault too? Or the taker of the medicine? Or the giver of the medicine? You see, every little person and thing can be doing the wrong thing, not just Euthanasia! “Medical Research is all about finding treatments and cures for people diagnosed with "incurable and painful diseases." Do you even see what you just said? “is all about finding treatments and cures” for people with “incurable….diseases.” You say they are incurable yet they are finding “cures” for incurable things! What? Conclusion In conclusion, over the course of this debate, we have : - Provided 5 thorough points on why Euthanasia should be legalized. - Refuted parts of every one of your points - Stated references for every quote or number that we have used Thank you for debating us, DDD Vote Pro!!!!!!! Oh and remember that you can not refute our rebuttals! References: {1} http://en.wikipedia.org... {2} https://www.google.ca...