Resolved: Voluntary Euthanasia is Morally Justified

Rebuttals: C1. SCI Con makes the assumption that 1) Every human being has worth. 2) Our inherent value does not depend on anything else. 3) Kantian dentological ethics is true. In fact, according to the document "The Formula of Humanity as an end to itself" from California State University, Los Angeles, by Richard Dean, humanity is not an end to itself, but rather rational beings are an end to themselves. "One generally accepted interpretive idea is that Kant is not saying that exactly all and only members of the human species must be treated as ends in themselves. His use of the term "humanity (in German, "die Menschheit") is potentially misleading, since he also consistently says that "rational beings are ends in themselves, in virtue of their ""rational nature.""" Rationality is the key feature that distinguishes typical humans from all the other beings that we know of, so it is not too great a slip to say that human beings are ends in themselves. But Kant also thinks that God possesses a rational nature, more perfectly rational than our own, and he even thinks it could well be that there are races of rational beings living on other planets (7:332). So Kant does not mean to say that only members of our biological species can be rational or must be treated as ends in themselves. And if rational nature is what makes a being an end in herself, then being biologically human is not a sufficient condition for being an end in oneself either. Some humans "" patients in permanent vegetative states, for example "" lack even the most minimal sort of rationality. So there is a consensus that Kant means that rational beings are ends in themselves," This quote especially emphazizes that those who are not rational beings are not ends to themselves, and since euthanasia paitents are not rational beings (admitted by con in C2 Interests "euthanasia paitents cannot assess themselves properly" (paraphrase) ), euthanasia paitents are not ends to themselves, thus Kantian ethics does not apply to euthanasia paitents. SC2 " Next, I turned to look at all the acts of oppression that make people suffer under the sun. Look at the tears of those who suffer! No one can comfort them. Their oppressors have all the power. No one can comfort those who suffer. 2 I congratulate the dead, who have already died, rather than the living, who still have to carry on. 3 But the person who hasn't been born yet is better off than both of them. He hasn’t seen the evil that is done under the sun." -Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 According to the book of Eccelesiastes, it is better to be dead than to be living, and it is better to not have been born rather than to be living. According to PewResearchCenter, there are about 2.18 billion Christians on planet Earth, and for Christians, the Bible is the primary source of truth. (http://www.pewforum.org...) Furthermore, euthanasia does not downgrade the value of life, as it gives the option for someone to choose to die. In fact, it could be argued that not giving someone the choice to die devalues the value of the paitent's life, because they cannot make a decision on their own life. C2 "Another problem with morally justifying euthanasia is that it is impossible to know whether death is the best interest of the patient or whether the patient is in the best position to properly assess him or herself. Is it ethical to place a risky and very hard choice on the person who may not be the best at deciding it under extensive pain and pressure from others? One cannot properly assess themselves psychologically, especially when it comes to the serious issue of dying." According to Kantian dentological ethics, if a person is a rational being then they are an end to themselves, and since euthanasia paitents cannot assess him or herself properly, they are not rational beings, and thus are not ends to themselves. If that interpreation of Kantian dentological ethics is wrong, however, and all humans are intrinsically rational, then a euthanasia paitent's decision or will to die ought to be followed, for if a euthanasia paitent is rational, it "requires that their own reasoned motives must be equally respected." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) In Kantian ethics, there is a concept known as the catergoical imperitive. "As part if I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something;" "if I wish to acquire knowledge, I must learn." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) This can be applied to euthanasia. "If I wish to end my suffering, I must die" In conclusion, assuming a euthanasia paitent is rational, then their decision to die must be respected, if they are not rational, however, then they do not have value according to Kantian dentological ethics. "Euthanasia is unnecessary because there are many scenarios in which it may done out of a wrong decision. Suppose that life for the patient may not be worth living now but well worth it in the future. " Suppose euthanasia is necessary. Euthanasia may be necessary because it may be the only way to end a paitent's suffering, and there is no benefit to the suffering because one is at the end of their life, and the suffering prevents them from doing anything that furthers the well being of others, and they are going to die. If there is no benefit to the suffering, then the suffering is meaningless, and there is more harm than good done. Euthanasia is morally justified because it gives people the option to end their suffering if there is no benefit of the suffering and no hope to get better. C3. "Some more ethical issues that exist with euthanasia is how it is an extension of suicide. Our society largely condemns suicide baiting and believes that choosing to kill oneself regardless of their circumstances is wrong. Allowing voluntary euthanasia is not suicide baiting, it merely gives the option to end their suffering by terminating themselves. Not all people think that choosing to kill onself regardless of their circumstances is wrong, perhaps in most situations, but not all, as most people are divided in this issue. To some, it is more comforting that their loved one is at peace and dead rather than alive and suffering. "The role of doctors and physicians is to save life and make life better for others, which means that assisting in death is a direct contradiction of the duty of these medical workers." And euthanazing a paitent with their consent does make life better for the paitent, if they are in tremendous suffering, so it is not a direct contradiction of the duty of these medical workers. " Euthanasia is not justified simply because a physician is involved, nor is it if the physician is granted legal permission to do so." A physician is granted legal permission to voluntary euthanasia, according the ruling of Barber vs. Superior Court. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, to be distinguished from those killings which society has deemed justifiable. This court deems the cessation of life support as an omission of further treatment as opposed to an affirmative act and there is no criminal liability for an omission where no legal duty is owed. A physicians omission to continue treatment where such treatment has proven ineffective, regardless of the physician's knowledge that the patient would die, is not a failure to perform a legal duty and therefore the physician cannot be held liable for murder. (http://www.casebriefs.com...) VE is also legal in: Nl, Be, and Lu. Switz., Germ., Alb., Colo., Ja. In conclusion, if paitents are not rational beings, then they are not ends to themselves, as con states. If they are rational beings, however, then they ought to have the option of euthanasia, assuming that Kantian ethics are true. Either way, the res. is affirmed.