Legalize Euthanasia

Thank you :) Con. You are doing very well yourself. To counter my opponent"s case, I believe his arguments contains many fallacies that may render his argument as insufficient. Here is a list of the fallacies I will mention within my debate: Slippery-Slope- asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen (1). Inductive Fallacy- It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it (2). False equivalence- describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none (3). Argument from silence- where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence (4). -- In Con"s first refutation, he states: "My opponent attempts to refute my first argument by appealing to the fact that the patient will die anyway, irrespective of whether or not they ask for euthanasia. However, surely this logic can be applied to all human life? We will all die at some point, so surely our whole lives are terminal? The logic fails because the fact that we will die eventually does not render it inconsequential to end our lives prematurely. If this wasn't the case, then there would be no reason why we shouldn't commit suicide here and now." Through this statement, my opponent uses a false equivalence fallacy (3) because he attempts to state that an individual"s life (not affected by a terminal illness) is equivalent to a terminal patient"s life because everyone will die once they grow older. The use of this fallacy makes his argument insufficient because he is trying to point out a logical equivalence between the two when there is none. While I agree with my opponent on the fact that some terminally ill people can live out the last year or so of their life experiencing many new things before they pass, he assumes that this is the case for most patients. Some patients may be too ill to experience anything outside of their hospital room, which he fails to recognize. Also, he provides no explanation as to why my argument, that it will give patients a sense of control, is insufficient. A patient should have the right to die if they choose that option, instead of forcibly having their life dragged out through life support. -- Again, in my opponent"s next rebuttal, he states: "However the example of a few people is not sufficient to outweigh all the negatives that will result from legalising euthanasia." While I do agree that my example of Brittany Maynard can"t stand for every terminally ill patient, Con fails to realize that his evidence can"t stand for every terminal patient as well. In this part of his argument, he uses an inductive fallacy (2) because he claims that based on his light evidence that he has provided, most patients are mentally unstable. Therefore, due to his hasty conclusion, the option of euthanasia should not be available to any terminal patient. My opponent also goes on to talk about modern medicine improving all the time to help alleviate some pain. While this could help patients out greatly, it should still be their individual choice. Measures could be taken to make sure people know all of their options, are mentally stable, and have thought their decision out before choosing euthanasia. He stated that many terminal patients suffer from depression due to their illness, but depression can often be treated with medication and therapy to alleviate the psychological hindrance. If the depression is alleviated, than a sound judgment can be made by the patient themselves. -- In Con"s next argument, he continues to repeat himself on the fact that terminally ill patients cannot be trusted to make a decision like this. As I said in my rebuttal above, steps could potentially be taken to ensure a more stable judgment from the terminal patient. In response to his statement that my list saying that patients would decide based on their beliefs, Con states that this list is too "idealistic." I can see where he could have concluded that, but it is naive for him to assume that people will, because some other patients may choose euthanasia, end up choosing euthanasia because it is the "norm." For example, let"s take a look at Debate.org (and I am in no way saying that these are equivalent in any way, but this does help support the point that I will make). Every day, many people on this website debate their opinions on important controversial topics such as this one. How often do people budge from their own views on topics though? Am I budging on my opinion that euthanasia should be legalized? Are you? While some people may be influenced by the opinions of others around them, I believe that it is human nature to stick to your own beliefs. So in this case, why would it become the "norm" for people to choose euthanasia? If it were legalized, people who opposed euthanasia wouldn't"t just abandoned all of their previous beliefs, and their children would be raised in a household that opposes such an option. There is no proof that his argument would in fact occur. Through most of his arguments, he applies the slippery-slope fallacy (1). He assumes that if the choice to use euthanasia becomes available, than many severely negative outcomes will result. -- In response to Con"s argument that the use of euthanasia will severely handicap medical research for cures, I believe this is to concrete of a conclusion. I will reply simply with one main idea that ties into my argument from above. On the grounds that there will potentially be patients that oppose euthanasia as a treatment due to their beliefs, there will still be patients for researchers to observe different illnesses. Also, in regards to researching diseases to find cures, scientists can examine human cadavers that died from a terminal illness to research for a cure just as much as an alive person. Cures don"t have to come from observing a patient and how they progress through their disease, but they can come from examining the disease on a chemical/molecular level (which can be observed post-mortem). So observations could still be made post-mortem and through patients not wanting euthanasia. -- In my opponent"s last argument, he attempts to point out that I had not adequately responded to his point that you could employ regulations because I stated that "the option would most likely only be offered to terminally ill patients, not just average elderly people.' He, however, is the one that inadequately responds to my argument because he states that, "the fact remains that most terminally ill patients are actually elderly." He fails to hold a sound argument because with this, he exhibits the fallacy argument from silence (4). Con has no evidence that most terminally ill patients are in fact elderly, and he may be falsely assuming this because most elderly patients are in fact only reaching the end of their lifespan (dying due to old age). While terminally ill patients may very well be elderly in some cases, in others they may not be, making his argument insufficient. -- I would like to also point out another argument that I felt was important to bring forth. Some people that oppose euthanasia point out their belief that it is an unnatural way to die. I do not know if Con agrees with this notion, but I will go on to explain how this argument is insufficient. The reason this argument is often false is because, more often than not with terminal patients, their lives are dragged out in equally unnatural ways. A terminal patient that is hooked up to life support, for example, wouldn't survive naturally without the assistance of a machine. People shouldn't be deprived of the choice to be taken off these treatments that are essentially unnaturally dragging out their suffering because others don"t morally accept euthanasia as a proper choice to be allowed. -- (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...