Question: Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill The government does not have the right to say a citizen must be forced to live against their will. A life is that of the individual and the decisions made with that life, including its existence, should be left to the person living that life. No human being should be forced to suffer through his or her disease, illness, or injury against his or her will. Assisted suicide programs help offer consolation to those who may be in a state of loneliness and despondency while also maintaining dignity in death for the patient. Death is a private matter and although it may affect the family and friends of the patient, it is still a sole right belonging to said patient alone.

Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, should be made legal in the United States because it many cases in is in the patient's best interest. Many painful, terminal conditions exist that lead to long-term suffering and severely effect the quality of life. Life is sacred, yes, but when that life is blind, deaf, paralyzed, unable to swallow, and seizing uncontrollably then there is nothing "sacred" about it. Physician assisted suicide would be handled in a similar way to a DNR legally speaking, with the patient signing a paper stating that in the even of a certain illness or medical state they would be okay with having their life ending painlessly, gently, and professionally by a trusted doctor.

Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide I accept!Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide should be legal in extreme cases where the patient is willing and suffering from excruciating pain for an extended amount of time with no certain end in site.

Euthanasia It is true that everyone dies eventually, but if we use that as our argument we can easily use it to justify other actions. It could rationalize dowry deaths in India, genocide, infant abandonment and countless other barbaric practices. Yes, everyone dies. That does not give us the right to dictate when that happens. Saying we should make euthanasia legal because people would do it anyway is a little like saying we should make drugs legal. People do them anyway. Legalizing drugs would give people a legal and possibly healthier way to do what they want, but the end is the same. Legal or not, euthanasia kills people. Euthanasia is illegal because murder is illegal. I am not comparing people who help a family member seeking physician-assisted-suicide to murderers, but the end result is the same: an innocent person loses his life. The family might feel guilt, but the act is the deliberate killing of someone you love, so guilt might be a natural response. Either way, counseling should certainly be available. It is possible that having a doctor kill your loved one could alleviate the guilt you might feel. I personally would still think about the fact that I consented to and facilitated their death. Technically, the person would be killing himself, taking barbiturates. In that sense, the doctor is not doing anything, but both the doctor and I would have facilitated my loved one’s death. Euthanasia is the taking of a person’s life and should not be legal. No one ever said that every moment of life is good. That wouldn’t be rational. But the life in itself is good. We should respect people, absolutely, but we need to do that by actually respecting who they are and not wanting to end their time on earth. Real compassion will love people no matter their condition and encourage them that they are loved and precious, regardless of the pain or condition they are in. Suffering at the end does not change the good of a person’s whole life. We all suffer sometimes, albeit some far more than others. That suffering does not make us less than we are. If anything, it provides the best opportunities to grow. We can’t live pain-free lives. Suffering is a part of life and one that we have to face. There is the metaphor of the cheese. This view reduces the view of the person to the value of an object. If part of someone’s life is unpleasant we should cut it away. We don’t get to cherry-pick the nice moments in life. Life is life, sometimes good and sometimes bad, but always valuable and to be respected. We should never make people suffer, but we should not kill them either. There are other options. There are choices between the two extremes of physician-assisted suicide and a forced prolonging of painful life. Medicine is meant to heal, and death is not healing. It is true that death will alleviate physical suffering, but the person won’t be alive to appreciate that. In ending their suffering, you end everything else about them. The state has a duty to protect the best interest of the people. Death is never a better scenario than life. Life can be painful and ugly, and sometimes we hate it, but that does not make it bad and it does not make death a better option. If we support euthanasia it is a little like supporting teen suicide. If you’re in a lot of pain and you don’t see a point to living, why not end it? The State arguably has no right to prevent your death, but we don’t often hear people supporting that teenagers go and kill themselves if they feel like it. That is because all problems are temporary (even, in a sense, terminal illnesses) and human life is more valuable than anything else in the world. Our illnesses don’t define us. Even dying and in pain, you are not your suffering. You are a unique human being with dignity that cannot be diminished or taken away. This dignity can, however, be violated. Killing a person violates his dignity. Some people argue that we have no right to force someone to live. The reality is that we have no right to take his life. Economically, it does make sense that ending a sick person’s life saves money. The problem with this money-saving mentality is that we are no longer looking at people as human beings. We start to see them as numbers, costs and liabilities. The overall mentality becomes one of practicality. If the person does not perform a function or directly benefit society, we should get rid of him. As a classic example, getting rid of the sick and elderly was one of the first moves of the Nazi party at the beginning of the Shoah. It can be easy enough for a culture to slip into a mentality of use. This sounds extreme, but is it? When terminal illness is a declaration of a person’s diminished value, logically he would receive second-rate health care, if any. Under this mentality, people are objects, not rational and inherently valuable beings. We can’t see people this way. The idea that people are measured by what they produce is what leads to eugenic policies that seek to eliminate the weak and less-than-perfect. Granted, most individuals and families who want euthanasia are not thinking, “Great, I can get rid of my useless relative and save money.” Most people have good intentions. Unfortunately, a utilitarian outlook is the natural consequence of a mindset based on euthanasia, one that estimates a person’s worth and his quality of life based on accidents of his life, not based on his nature. On the opposite side of the argument, providing treatment can advance medicine, create more jobs, and preserve the greatest resource we have: people. But what about people who are suffering or don’t want to degenerate? It’s a tragedy that people think ending their life is better than living it. Pain does not make us any less human. Often the most inspiring people are ones who overcome the worst suffering (Douglas Mawson, Helen Keller and countless others). People should not have to die to be happy. We all want to be loved. We want to die in the company of people who care about us, happy and with dignity. The people who love us want what is best for us, but death is not better than life. As far as autonomy, death is a decision that we appear to have control over. The reality is that there is a lot in life we have no control over. We don’t choose when we are born or what we look like, what kind of economic standing we are born into or who are family are. We often don’t control when we might lose a job or lose a family member. Death is a decision that most people never make. In a sense, the corresponding event to life (or birth) is death. We don’t choose it, but we make the most of it. Real autonomy is making the choices we can make and exercising our free will. Autonomy does not extend to decisions that we don’t have control over. We can’t and don’t give people everything they want. It is not our duty to give people everything they want. Medical professionals don’t let patients decide everything about their treatment. Most people are not trained in medicine. There are some decisions they cannot make. Not making euthanasia legal does not take away a choice a person had, it simply prevents him from making a choice he never had to begin with. Medical professionals should not let people choose when they die, just as they would not let a patient diagnose himself or prescribe his own treatment. Medicine is not meant to give people what they want. Like setting a broken leg, sometimes treatment is painful. You wouldn’t tell a child, “This is going to hurt for a long time. If you’re not okay with the pain, you can choose whether you want treatment or you want to end the pain.” No. The doctor would tell the child that the treatment is for his own well being and heal him to the best of his abilities. The same logic applies for terminal illnesses. It is not powerful to die. It takes strength to live. To put it bluntly, autonomy in death does not leave the person free and empowered. It leaves him dead.

Euthanasia Should Be Legal. Euthanasia is the practice of ending someone's life in a painless manner, under their full conscious consent. This is done when the patient is terminally ill, and there are no foreseeable cures for their condition, a condition in which usually the patient is under excruciating pain. In a way, this is a form of suicide, one that is assisted by a physician who takes into consideration factors such as the condition of the patient; of whether or not they are viable for euthanasia. Individuals have the number one priority in a decision dealing with their own personal health and care. If they consent to euthanasia, then it should rightfully be granted to them. I will develop my arguments in further rounds.

Euthanasia should be legal Euthanasia is is the practice of ending someone's life in a relatively painless manner, and with their full consent. This is only done when the patient is terminally ill, and there are no cures for their illness and the patient is usually under unbearable pain. This means that this is not suicide, this is a medical procedure, that is assisted by a physician who decides weather or not the patient are ill enough for euthanasia. If a individual decides that they have so much pain that they can"t live with it, and that they would rather die than live with the pain until they die shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

People have the right to be euthanized. Many thanks again to my opponent. I look forward to an interesting discussion! First and foremost, one's life belongs to one's own person. People must be free to live (and die) as they please. To suggest otherwise means one's life ought to be dictated by other people. That is an inherent violation of one's freedom and bodily autonomy. Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies [1]. The violation of bodily integrity is an unethical infringement. The only exception to this standard regards a human being whose life is not self-realized. This includes fetuses before a certain state of development, living persons in a vegetative state, and people so terminally ill that they will assuredly die. Those people's lives can be ended through non-voluntary euthanasia in good conscience, as their 'personhood' status would be challenged given certain criteria of personhood (they lack consciousness) and therefore their legal right to life is no longer recognized. Voluntary euthanasia gives people the option of dying with dignity on their own terms. It allows them to die peacefully and eases their pain and suffering. Exercising the right to personal autonomy is an inherent component of liberty. The state or personal interference of voluntary euthanasia inhibits freedom. It might also qualify as unnecessary torture. If we logically "put down" animals to ease their pain and soften transition to death, why exclude human beings from the same consideration? It is selfish to dictate how another person lives or dies if they are not harming anyone but themselves by choice. Not allowing people in tremendous pain to opt out is cruel. It presumes that an outsider understands what the patient is feeling and undermines their desires out of selfish and culturally biased values. The patient is entitled to their own values and choices which might be different from other people's. Again, if they are not overtly harming another person, then they have the moral right to end their life or ease their pain on their own terms. Their life belongs to them and them alone. In cases where people could not put an immediate end to their long, drawn out, insufferable agony (most people do NOT die quickly and painlessly in their sleep) then many choose to kill themselves through other means such as starvation or refusal of treatment. If people want to die they will find a way to die. It's morally sound to make their death as painless as possible. Non-voluntary euthanasia ought to be reserved only for those who are terminally ill and at the very end of their expected life. It would be pointless to argue that a very rare miracle with 0.000001% chance of probability ought to dictate our legal parameters. Those who have power-of-attorney rights over someone should be able to "pull the plug" at their discretion. A medical power of attorney is a document that lets you appoint someone you trust to make decisions about your medical care if you cannot make them yourself [2]. Euthanasia objectors push fear mongering, such as the myth that allowing euthanasia will suddenly make the world murder-hungry, greedy, evil and death crazed -- a complete exaggeration with no substantiated proof whatsoever. After all we only give power of attorney rights to those we trust, such as our spouse or children. In countries that have legalized euthanasia such as the Netherlands, euthanasia itself remains a criminal act unless carried out by a qualified doctor with the consent of a legal and ethics expert [3]. This means that mercy killing does not have to be and should not be a frivolous endeavor to be taken lightly. Instead standards would be imposed to ensure the patient is either fully conscious and voluntarily ending their life, or investigating the circumstances surrounding a power-of-attorney or next of kin to make that decision in the case of non-voluntary euthanasia. In other words the process would not target the vulnerable (the old, disabled and wary) and pressure them to end their lives, or leave their lives in the hands of a stranger or one with ulterior motives. It should simply be an option in particular circumstances that warrant it. Many people who choose or plan on choosing euthanasia insist that the optional choice enhances the quality of their own lives [4]. They know to make each day count and feel totally in control of how the rest of their life will proceed. This is an invaluable emotional and spiritual gift that almost rivals the gift of physical health. After all, most of us probably hope to die peacefully and painlessly one day since death is inevitable for us all. Finally, I can't ignore the financial and economic analysis surrounding assisted suicide. While you cannot put a price on life, the cost of end-of-life care is objectively not worth the money when you factor inevitability and the state of the prolonged life. It could cost tens of thousands of dollars to keep someone alive for even just a few days while they are not even aware they are alive [5]. Considering many of these people don't want to be alive (and will waste money living in agony instead of making better use of that money for the living whose lives are valued and actually improved by that money), then you have to consider who really benefits from forced survival - especially if the cost is being passed on to others. There's no legitimately good reason to mandate that another person live against their will, especially if they are suffering. Fear mongering won't work when scrutinizing statistics. For example in 2005, a study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient"s explicit permission [6]. This among other facts would immediately rule out the notion that permissible euthanasia would compel a death frenzy. This process is typically reserved for those who want to die with dignity - not those with a presumed incentive to kill others. A Dutch report found that in 86 percent of cases, euthanasia shortened life by a maximum of a week and usually only a few hours [7]. In other words, it was a last resort - an escape used by patients in unbearable agony who would rather that agony be ended now than in two days time. We have no reason to believe that the option would be abused. Even if it were a possibility, the fact that almost every single aspect of our lives is subjected to possible corruption, abuse or misuse would likely significantly undermine those arguments in comparison to the reality of forced life which is essentially torture for many terminally ill euthanasia recipients. Facilitating death with dignity doesn't mean that a patient would be excluded from the best care or have other options ignored or dismissed preemptively. It simply ensures one's life is not valued by longevity but quality, and that each person has the right to govern their own bodies -- including giving other people the authority to do so when they no longer have the ability. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.rirtl.org... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.cnn.com... [5] http://www.cbsnews.com... [6] http://listverse.com... [7] http://www.eutanasia.ws...

Euthanasia should not be legalized. I look forward to a great debate! First and foremost, one's life belongs to one's own person. People must be free to live (and die) as they please. To suggest otherwise means one's life ought to be dictated by other people. That is an inherent violation of one's freedom and bodily autonomy. Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies [1]. The violation of bodily integrity is an unethical infringement. The only exception to this standard regards a human being whose life is not self-realized. This includes fetuses before a certain state of development, living persons in a vegetative state, and people so terminally ill that they will assuredly die. Those people's lives can be ended through non-voluntary euthanasia in good conscience, as their 'personhood' status would be challenged given certain criteria of personhood (they lack consciousness) and therefore their legal right to life is no longer recognized. Voluntary euthanasia gives people the option of dying with dignity on their own terms. It allows them to die peacefully and eases their pain and suffering. Exercising the right to personal autonomy is an inherent component of liberty. The state or personal interference of voluntary euthanasia inhibits freedom. It might also qualify as unnecessary torture. If we logically "put down" animals to ease their pain and soften transition to death, why exclude human beings from the same consideration? It is selfish to dictate how another person lives or dies if they are not harming anyone but themselves by choice. Not allowing people in tremendous pain to opt out is cruel. It presumes that an outsider understands what the patient is feeling and undermines their desires out of selfish and culturally biased values. The patient is entitled to their own values and choices which might be different from other people's. Again, if they are not overtly harming another person, then they have the moral right to end their life or ease their pain on their own terms. Their life belongs to them and them alone. In cases where people could not put an immediate end to their long, drawn out, insufferable agony (most people do NOT die quickly and painlessly in their sleep) then many choose to kill themselves through other means such as starvation or refusal of treatment. If people want to die they will find a way to die. It's morally sound to make their death as painless as possible. Non-voluntary euthanasia ought to be reserved only for those who are terminally ill and at the very end of their expected life. It would be pointless to argue that a very rare miracle with 0.000001% chance of probability ought to dictate our legal parameters. Those who have power-of-attorney rights over someone should be able to "pull the plug" at their discretion. A medical power of attorney is a document that lets you appoint someone you trust to make decisions about your medical care if you cannot make them yourself [2]. Euthanasia objectors push fear mongering, such as the myth that allowing euthanasia will suddenly make the world murder-hungry, greedy, evil and death crazed -- a complete exaggeration with no substantiated proof whatsoever. After all we only give power of attorney rights to those we trust, such as our spouse or children. In countries that have legalized euthanasia such as the Netherlands, euthanasia itself remains a criminal act unless carried out by a qualified doctor with the consent of a legal and ethics expert [3]. This means that mercy killing does not have to be and should not be a frivolous endeavor to be taken lightly. Instead standards would be imposed to ensure the patient is either fully conscious and voluntarily ending their life, or investigating the circumstances surrounding a power-of-attorney or next of kin to make that decision in the case of non-voluntary euthanasia. In other words the process would not target the vulnerable (the old, disabled and wary) and pressure them to end their lives, or leave their lives in the hands of a stranger or one with ulterior motives. It should simply be an option in particular circumstances that warrant it. Many people who choose or plan on choosing euthanasia insist that the optional choice enhances the quality of their own lives [4]. They know to make each day count and feel totally in control of how the rest of their life will proceed. This is an invaluable emotional and spiritual gift that almost rivals the gift of physical health. After all, most of us probably hope to die peacefully and painlessly one day since death is inevitable for us all. Finally, I can't ignore the financial and economic analysis surrounding assisted suicide. While you cannot put a price on life, the cost of end-of-life care is objectively not worth the money when you factor inevitability and the state of the prolonged life. It could cost tens of thousands of dollars to keep someone alive for even just a few days while they are not even aware they are alive [5]. Considering many of these people don't want to be alive (and will waste money living in agony instead of making better use of that money for the living whose lives are valued and actually improved by that money), then you have to consider who really benefits from forced survival - especially if the cost is being passed on to others. There's no legitimately good reason to mandate that another person live against their will, especially if they are suffering. Fear mongering won't work when scrutinizing statistics. For example in 2005, a study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient"s explicit permission [6]. This among other facts would immediately rule out the notion that permissible euthanasia would compel a death frenzy. This process is typically reserved for those who want to die with dignity - not those with a presumed incentive to kill others. A Dutch report found that in 86 percent of cases, euthanasia shortened life by a maximum of a week and usually only a few hours [7]. In other words, it was a last resort - an escape used by patients in unbearable agony who would rather that agony be ended now than in two days time. We have no reason to believe that the option would be abused. Even if it were a possibility, the fact that almost every single aspect of our lives is subjected to possible corruption, abuse or misuse would likely significantly undermine those arguments in comparison to the reality of forced life which is essentially torture for many terminally ill euthanasia recipients. Facilitating death with dignity doesn't mean that a patient would be excluded from the best care or have other options ignored or dismissed preemptively. It simply ensures one's life is not valued by longevity but quality, and that each person has the right to govern their own bodies -- including giving other people the authority to do so when they no longer have the ability. Thanks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.rirtl.org... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.cnn.com... [5] http://www.cbsnews.com... [6] http://listverse.com... [7] http://www.eutanasia.ws...

Euthanasia should be legalized I will support my contention, that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized, with the following arguments: 1. The right to die and self determination 2. Wasted health resources and public funds 3. Prohibition targets innocents There are other arguments, but I believe the following arguments should satisfy the reader to conclude that Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legal. 1. The right to die and self determination I would like to highlight articles 5 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1]: Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression Bob Dent, who was euthanatized, said it best: "What right has anyone […] to demand that I must behave according to their rules? " That's the point I want to make. While I strongly don't agree that someone should give up hope and be euthanatized, but this is neither my decision nor yours. We must respect people's opinions, no matter how much we disagree with them. People who are terminally ill suffer significantly. If they voluntarily, repeatedly and freely make the decision to end their lives, we have no right to deny them that right. Doing so will deny them their right for self-determination and will subject them to pain against their will. 2. Wasted health resources and public funds Euthanasia would free up doctors, nurses and hospital beds. These scarce resources would then be deployed to assist those who are in need, reduce waiting times and improve the overall quality of care [3]. To spend these resources to forcefully preserve the lives of patients against their will is ridiculous. 3. Prohibition targets innocents In Ireland, Marie Fleming was denied the right to end her life. Her partner was told that he could face up to 14 years in prison if he helped her die! [4] A Pennsylvania woman was charged with murder for assisting her 93 year old father commit suicide [5]. Rebuttal a. Equality issues? My opponent stated that "limiting euthanasia to the terminally ill sends a message that certain people are expendable and others aren't". This argument is similar to saying that designating parking spots for the disabled sends a message that disabled people are inferior. But this is simply not true… disabled people are the ones who requested to be accommodated; they in fact feel insulted when their voices are not heard. The same goes with the terminally ill requesting the right to euthanasia. They argue that the value of human life is not determined by the government, but by the individuals themselves. They can judge for themselves if their life is expendable or not, not the government. My opponent also claimed that "legalizing euthanasia suggests that human life only has instrumental value". He argued "Why treat people with equal respect if we don't really believe that they're equal? " I disagree. I argue that my opponent is confusing the objective human worth and subjective self worth. Article 1 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that we must view all humans as equals in dignity and rights [1]. This is the objective view of human worth. A terminally ill person is just as valuable as a healthy person. However, we have no jurisdiction to define the subjective self worth (or instrumental value) of any individual… that would be determined by the individuals themselves. b. Unintended consequences? My opponent also warned of the risk of the slippery slope. He wondered if Euthanasia was legalized: "what's to stop non-consensual euthanasia"? While this is a very common challenge to legalization of euthanasia, it's actually a red herring! Every argument has its own merits and reasons. Non-voluntary euthanasia (or non-consensual euthanasia) may or may not have its own merits and should be discussed separately. My opponent was also concerned that people may be euthanatized incorrectly by a doctor. However, he hasn't provided any evidence for this possibility. Under the Dutch law, the following conditions must be fulfilled [6]: - The patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement - The patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time - The request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs - The patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options - There must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above I argue that such measures are very responsible and would significantly reduce any potential doctor error. c. Corruption? My opponent stated that Euthanasia "invalidates the Hippocratic Oath. " I challenge my opponent to state which parts of the oath euthanasia allegedly invalidates. There are several parts of the oath that actually supports euthanasia [7]: "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required. " "I will remember that […] that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug" "…But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. " I argue that my opponent's claim actually supports my contention, not weaken it! My opponent also argued that euthanasia transforms the role of the doctor to "priests, granting absolution for a patient's suicide" and that "state sanctifies the intentional killing of another human being" There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is that my opponent suggested that the intentional killing is always evil or wrong. But this is not true when it comes to euthanasia. I've already demonstrated that the voluntary euthanasia of terminally ill patients is not evil, but merciful. The second problem is that doctors perform euthanasia with full conscience and out of profound interest in helping their patients. Doctor's don't grant any absolution or lack their off. They simply help their patients end their suffering. My opponent also suggested that "euthanasia could disincentivize the research and development of better medical care". I challenge my opponent to provide any evidence for this claim. The number of patients who request euthanasia is very limited, and there's no reason to believe that this claim is true. d. Suicide and Unnecessary? Let me start by agreeing with my opponent on the legalization of assisted suicide. (In my opening argument I stated Euthanasia (or assisted suicide)). I do agree that's assisted suicide is a better option for those who are able to receive lethal pills and administer it themselves. However, how about those who don't have the means to commit suicide? Tony Nicklinson was denied his bid to die [4]. He was suffering from "locked in" syndrome and was living "a living nightmare". It was so horrific that he decided to starve himself to death and died after a week without food. Also Kelly Taylor suffered so much pain that she starved herself for 19 days. She realized that her suicide route was even more harmful that she gave it up and suffered in agony again. My opponent mentioned that patients have the right to refuse treatment. In light of the two examples before, and the amount of suffering it takes until someone finally dies, you couldn't possibly agree that this is a viable option! I also strongly disagree with my opponent's idea to make deadly pills available to the public. What would prevent someone from purchasing them to murder others? It has to be monitored to avoid abuse. Also, its ease of access could have people kill themselves because they were having a bad day! Euthanasia and assisted suicide is only provided to patients who frequently and persistently request it. Thank you. [1] . http://www.un.org... [2] . http://www.ethicalrights.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://listverse.com... [5] . http://www.cnn.com... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Euthanasia Thousands of people die each year in the United States due to terminal illness. Often times patients are suffering in the final months of their lives, whether that be from the disease itself or harmful side effects from the amount of medication they must take to relive their pain. A patient that has a sound mind is capable of refusing treatment if they so choose, because they have the right over their own body. For the reason of personal autonomy and to end chronic suffering a patient should have the right to choose to end his life through euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.

physician assisted suicide should be legalized I affirm: Physician assisted suicide should be legalized. Physician assisted suicide: The killing of a person by a physician, assuming consent of both physician and person, and proof that the person is mentally sound. Contention 1: Freedom of Choice People have a freedom of choice. Yes, this freedom has limits when others are in harm's way. But suicide is internal and personal. It affects others far less than it affects oneself. So in the end, it is a personal choice. Contention 2: An End To Suffering When someone is suffering, she may want it to just be over. She has no reason to continue living, so why should she? Requiring someone to continue living when she does not want to is terribly unjust: it is an intentional affliction of suffering unto someone. This is needless, and is why physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. Contention 3: Reduction of Traditional Suicide Those who are suicidal will not stop themselves from committing suicide simply because it is illegal. Personally-executed suicides are dangerous and have the potential to be very harmful due to the carelessness of the suicidal. But if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, then it will greatly reduce the risk of suicides gone awry. Subsequently, the government and health institutions will be able to document the suicides. Keeping accurate records of who has committed suicide greatly increases convenience for the hospitals and insurance companies.

Euthanasia I will argue that consensual euthanasia is not immoral and should not be illegal. Euthanasia doesn't create any extra deaths, all life ends in death, euthanasia just determines the time and manner of an inevitable death. While life as a whole may be good not every moment of life is good. If a patient and their doctor understand that a condition will make the remainder of the patient's life undesirable to live then euthanasia can serve as a purpose of preventing suffering that would diminish the overall quality of the person's life. By eliminating a period of suffering at the end of a life it can cause the life as a whole to be more valuable than if the last suffering stage were to be lived, much like cutting off a small portion of mold from a wheel of cheese can improve the value of the cheese. If a person makes an informed decision to die peacefully the State shouldn't have any business compelling them to suffer the remainder of life. There is also an economic benefit of euthanasia. There is a limited supply of resources and money in the world, every use of finite resources must be compared to other uses. Euthanasia can come at a smaller cost than living and can free up resources to put to other uses. The end of life can be very costly and if a patient decides to end their life in order to pass more money to their surviving family or save their family from some expenses no one ought to have a right to force them to live. Euthanasia can save the money of the patient, their family, and society as a whole. It is cruel to force a person to suffer. Some conditions will cause certain suffering that may only be alleviated with death. Preventing a person's only escape from suffering is dooming a person to a fate that they may wish to avoid. By prohibiting euthanasia the State would be condemning some of the population to terrible suffering. A prohibition on euthanasia is cruel. Euthanasia is consistent with liberty, freedom, autonomy, and choice. A prohibition on euthanasia restricts a person's choices by removing an option. People ought to be free to do anything except force harm to come to someone else. Informed and consensual euthanasia does not force anyone to be hurt thus shouldn't be illegal. Conversely a prohibition on euthanasia is forcing a person to live, if that life is painful then the prohibition is forcing harm. People should have the choice to live and die how they wish, as long as they are leaving other people free to do the same. Some people will opt for euthanasia whether it is legal or not. Having a legal option makes it so a person can easily seek out a professional to end their lives in the most humane and dignified way possible. It'd also prevent some very difficult situations for families or doctors that are petitioned by a suffering member to help them end their life; it'd put people at risk of criminal punishment if they compassionately obeyed the persons request to help them die peacefully. Some family members could feel guilt after the fact if they personally administered death to a loved one at their request, but if euthanasia was legal then a doctor could administer the death potentially saving the family member from feelings of guilt. If family still felt guilty they could seek counseling after the fact, but were euthanasia illegal they might not get counseling out of fear of admitting a crime or the stigma attached to their act.

Resolve that Euthanasia should be legalized When the doctor enters, your heart skips a beat. You know that there's no hope, that eventually death will come your way. But you also know that the fight to get there will be unbearably painful. You then realize that you will be cared for 24 hours, 7 days a week. You won't be able to go to the bathroom without help, you'll have to be forced fed. Your family is suffering from the truth and the unability to know just when the death will come. Euthanasia is physician assited suicide, and death with dignity. For so many reasons Euthanasia should be legalized, dignity, to end the pain, and so many more. Therefore I am for the above resolution, Euthanasia should be legalized.

Euthanasia First and foremost, one's life belongs to one's own person. People must be free to live (and die) as they please. To suggest otherwise essentially qualifies one as a slave whose life ought to be dictated by other people. The only exception to this supposition regards a human being whose life is not self-realized. This includes fetuses before a certain state of development, living persons in a vegetative state and people so terminally ill that they will assuredly die. Those people's lives can be ended through non-voluntary euthanasia in good conscience, as their 'personhood' status would be challenged given certain criteria of personhood (they lack consciousness) and are therefore no longer eligible for the legal right to life.Voluntary euthanasia gives people the option of dying with dignity on their own terms. It allows them to die peacefully and eases their pain and suffering. Exercising the right to personal autonomy is an inherent component of liberty. The state or interpersonal interference of voluntary euthanasia inhibits freedom. It might also qualify as unnecessary torture. If we logically "put down" animals to ease their pain and soften transition to death, why exclude human beings from the same consideration? It is selfish to dictate how another person lives or dies if they are not harming anyone but themselves by choice. Not allowing people in tremendous pain to opt out is cruel. It presumes that an outsider understands what the patient is feeling and undermines their desires out of selfish and culturally biased values. The patient is entitled to their own values and choices which might be different from other people's. Again, if they are not overtly harming another person, then they have the moral right to end their life or ease their pain on their own terms. Their life belongs to them and them alone. This is why involuntary euthanasia is morally abhorent, but voluntary euthanasia is just. In cases where people could not put an immediate end to their long, drawn out, insuffrable agony (most people do NOT die quickly and painlessly in their sleep) then many choose to kill themselves through other means such as starvation or refusal of treatment. If people want to die they will find a way to die. It's morally sound to make their death as painless as possible.Non-voluntary euthanasia ought to be reserved only for those who are terminally ill and at the very end of their expected life. It would be pointless to argue that a very rare miracle with 0.0000001% chance of probability ought to dictate our legal parameters. Those who have power-of-attorney rights over someone should be able to "pull the plug" at their discretion. Objections to this include fear mongering, such as the ridiculous myth that allowing euthanasia will suddenly make the world murder-hungry and death crazed -- a complete exaggeration with no substantiated proof whatsoever. In countries that have legalized euthanasia such as the Netherlands, euthanasia itself remains a criminal act unless carried out by a qualified doctor with the consent of a legal and ethics expert. This means that mercy killing does not have to be and should not be a frivolous endeavor to be taken lightly. Instead standards would be imposed to ensure the patient is either fully conscious and voluntarily ending their life, or investigating the circumstances surrounding a power-of-attorney or next of kin to make that decision in the case of non-voluntary euthanasia. In other words the process would not target the vulnerable (the old, disabled and wary) and pressure them to end their lives, or leave their lives in the hands of a stranger or one with ulterior motives. It should simply an option in particular circumstances that warrant it. Many people who choose or plan on choosing euthanasia insist that the optional choice enhances the quality of their own lives. They know to make each day count and feel totally in control of how the rest of their life will proceed. This is an invaluable emotional and spiritual gift that almost rivals the gift of physical health. After all, most of us probably hope to die peacefully and painlessly one day since death is inevitable for us all.Finally, I can't ignore the financial and economic analysis surrounding assisted suicide. While you cannot put a price on life, the cost of end-of-life care is objectively not worth the money when you factor inevitability and the state of the prolonged life. It could cost tens of thousands of dollars to keep someone alive for even just a few days while they are not even aware they are alive. Considering many of these people don't want to be alive (and will waste money living in agony instead of making better use of that money for the living whose lives are valued and actually improved by that money), then you have to consider who really benefits from forced survival - especially if the cost is being passed on to others. There's no legitimately good reason to mandate that another person live against their will, especially if they are suffering. Fear mongering won't work when scrutinizing statistics. For example in 2005, a study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient’s explicit permission. This among other facts would immediately rule out the notion that permissible euthanasia would compel a death frenzy. This process is typically reserved for those who want to die with dignity - not those with a presumed incentive to kill others.A Dutch report found that in 86 percent of cases, euthanasia shortened life by a maximum of a week and usually only a few hours. In other words, it was a last resort - an escape used by patients in unbearable agony who would rather that agony be ended now than in two days time. We have no reason to believe that the option would be abused. Even if it were a possibility, the fact that almost every single aspect of our lives is subjected to possible corruption, abuse or misuse would likely significantly undermine those arguments in comparison to the reality of forced life which is essentially torture for many terminally ill euthanasia recipients. Facilitating death with dignity doesn't mean that a patient would be excluded from the best care or have other options ignored or dismissed preemptively. It simply ensures one's life is not valued by longevity but quality. [ References ]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Euthanasia needs to be made legal for those who need it First Euthanesia (doctor assisted suicide) Should not be legal due to three main reasons that i will state with sub-topics. The reasons are, Value of human life, it undermines medicine research, its contradicts the right to live. Value of human life. As stated in the constitution, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happiness. " Euthanasia undermines the human life. Giving doctors the right to assist in suicide is giving power to doctors or to kill. All humans have the right to live. One does not choose his or her birth day, why should one choose his or her death day. This is a case of right to die versus right to kill. We have a right to die naturally. This is the reason when someone is murdered, the murderer is arrested. Samething in any case where a person does not die naturally. One could argue what about medicine and people who die from overdose and things like that because medicine is not natural. Dying naturally is simply the body not being able to handle whatever is the cause of death. Body not being able to handle medicine, alcohol, etc. Something that is not caused directly by someone else. Undermines medical research I understand people suffer. The pain is a big factor in this. Many with natural illnesses or termanlly ill want to die. One thing you have to consider is the medical research society has come to invent. Years ago, society lacked medicine, treatmants and such that temporarily help those who are suffering with their pain. By allowing someone to say "i want to do" and allowing this, the value of the medicine research that has been done to help treat the patient and potentially cure the patient is undermined. Eventually you fall into a society that could view it alright for a doctor to take the liffe of someone who wants to die. Same thing with suicide which is also illegal. By making this legal, you open a door that says "suicide is ok. " Many do not realize that people in critical conditions facing pain are often not in the right mind and suffer a false sense of worthlessness. That person may want to die simply because the pain is unbearable. Many in critical situations are not in the right mind. People whom have attempted suicide sometimes come to realize they do not wanna die, they just want happiness. It is difficult to let someone pursue happniess when we allow one to decide that their life is meaningless. Contradicts right to liveHumans have a right to live. We know this. We do not have a right to die though. If we had a right to die i beleive society would not be as strict on murders. If the right to die was in the Declaration of independence, or Constituion, a murder could simply kill and use the right to die as the reason for the murder. This could open doors for more murders and issues among society. Simply one cannot have a right to die as it is too vague. The right too die could be phrased as right to choose death. As far as it being a slow death, to many that slow death can be worth it to famliy members and others whom are effected directly. Overall i beleive people should not be allowed to decide that. Curing versus killing is a big part of the right to die. I beleive it should not be allowed because people are not always in the right mind when terminally ill, and often suffer from depression. There can be alternative treatments that prolong eath and can help patients. By offering the right of death it could lead to more people deciding it is better to kill then find a cure. This leads to unreasonable deaths.

The legalization and morality of euthanasia Though I am not a doctor, nor any type of physician. It is my belief that euthanasia should become a legal right to all who meet the criteria. Euthanasia should be granted to those who are either terminally ill and/or, nearing the end of their lives with an unbearable amount of pain. In other words, use common sense, leave your religious beliefs at the door (as I have done so for this debate) and keep ignorance to a minimum. Do not simply leave your argument to the substandard of "Suicide is just plain wrong!", or to the famous "Killing people is wrong!" argument. Euthanasia is a necessary and proper process and is in desperate need of legalization. There are many who are left to suffer until their tragic day of death arrives to them. It should not be this way for those people. Euthanasia would most definitely end the suffering of thousands who must deal with their own deaths, and unbearable pain.

Euthanasia should be legalized In this debate I will be arguing in favor of legal Euthanasia programs globally, although with specific references to more western countries, and in particular the US, where only 4 states have legalized euthanasia. In my personal view I believe euthanasia to be a critical discussion as I see the illegality as straight-up restriction of the human right. The right to intentionally end ones life is one in which I feel should 100% be gratified. People who are perhaps in significant physical or mental pain who want this certainty upon them quicker than what perhaps their body can last is, I feel, fully justified. Of course there would have to be bureaucracy so the establishment that one is ready to die is fully committed and no other outside players were involved. I believe that the person wanting to end their life should be subjected to questioning before the act is taken, for example if the person is mentally unstable, irrationally wanting to end their life but is willing to accept help and try to get better then this could avoid lots of irrational endings of life as euthanasia is made legal. Euthanasia should maintain its controlled assessment of patients and should be a last resort, but however, should most definitely be made legal. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

Euthanasia should be legal Euthanasia should be legal for those who have serious physical illnesses, like ALS. Nobody should take away their right to life and liberty. Also, unless you are one suffering through a serious physical illness like ALS you can't say euthanasia is wrong, considering you don't understand what it's like to go through ALS. All you do know, is many of those who are diagnosed with ALS do not want to live through it.

Euthanasia should be legalized Thanks for the debate, Salam. Unlike you, I'm an atheist, but I think euthanasia should be illegal. This should be an interesting debate.== Equality ==The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law to all people. This guarantee is replicated in Article 14 of the European Convention and in the constitutions and declarations of many other countries. We treat people with equal respect because of their status as human beings, without regard to their looks, gender, race, creed, or any other incidental trait. This commitment to human equality is grounded on the belief that all human beings innately have dignity and are worthy of respect.Legalizing euthanasia undermines human equality in two ways. First, limiting euthanasia to the terminallly ill sends a message that certain people are expendable and others aren't. In effect, allowing euthanasia for some people in certain conditions cheapens the existence of all under those conditions. This is especially worrisome as we expand the categories of people who can request euthanasia (e.g. saying the disabled should have the right to euthanasia implies that the disabled live an inferior and expendable life).Second, legalizing euthanasia suggests that human life only has instrumental value. But the only way to justify equal protection is by recognizing the inherent value of human life. If human life only has value based on its instrumental worth to society, a critical rationale for equal protection drops away. Why treat people with equal respect if we don't really believe that they're equal? If humans only have value based on their instrumental worth to society, why extend equal protection to those with low IQs? the mentally disabled? the autistic? infants with Down's syndrome? Alzheimer's patients?== Unintended Consequences ==First, if human life only has instrumental value (which it must to justify euthanasia), what's to stop non-consensual euthanasia? This is precisely what happened in the Netherlands: after legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill, the Netherlands legalized non-consensual euthanasia a few years later. This is one of those things where a slippery slope has been proven by the evidence (e.g. the Netherlands). Allowing consensual euthanasia quickly leads to non-consensual euthanasia, because both are grounded on the same justification (i.e. the instrumental value of life). Under that logic, if the value of a life is less than the costs of medical care, then physicians arguably would have a moral obligation to kill patients without their consent.Second, there's a real danger of abuse. And there's also the risk of doctors mistakenly killing persons without their consent, as well as the risk that the patient is being coerced by others (e.g. family members).Third, there's a danger about the message that euthanasia sends. Once early death becomes a medical option for some people (e.g. the terminally ill), it sends a message that early death is respectable for others too (e.g. the disabled, depressed, or those merely tired of life). The fear lies in extending the categories of people for whom euthanasia is available. If euthanasia is available to everyone, it cheapens the value of human life.== Corruption ==Euthanasia corrupts the medical profession. First, it invalidates the Hippocratic Oath, the standard principle for medical ethics. Euthanasia doesn't heal; it intentionally does harm. This completely violates the oath.Second, euthanasia transforms the role of doctors. Doctors don't actually perform anything remotely medical; they certainly don't heal. Instead, in euthanasia, doctors kill their patients, and in doing so, doctors santify (1) suicide, and (2) intentional killing. In effect, doctors become priests, granting absolution for a patient's suicide. Meanwhile, the state santifies the intentional killing of another human being. This isn't a role that doctors or the state should have; the medical profession shouldn't be in the business of santifying suicides and the state shouldn't be in the business of santifying intentional killings. That's something better left to religious or moral institutions.Third, allowing euthanasia could disincentivize the research and development of better medical care (i.e. why improve painkillers for those suffering if euthanasia is a cheaper option?). This slope could even disincentivize cures for diseases, since it'll be cheaper to simply kill people off.== Suicide == Most suicides are hurtful to those left behind. But sometimes, suicide is inspirational, transcendent, and the most beautiful and awe-inspiring act. For instance, Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire in protest after local officials humiliated him and confiscated his wares. He became the "Hero of Tunisia" and "Person of the Year" in Time magazine. His suicide led to riots and protests just hours after, and it culminated in the "Arab Spring," which ultimately led to the removal of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. [3] A bad suicide makes the world worse; a good one makes it better.A medical treatment isn't good or bad; it's neutral. And that is what legalizing voluntary euthanasia does: it reduces suicide to a medical choice. The question "to be or not to be" becomes a medical rather than moral question. Legalization thus removes suicide from our scope of judgment, and in doing so, it deprives suicide of its dramatic power and meaning.Speaking about the Eichmann trial, Hannah Arendt famously said that it's the refusal to judge that creates evil. Judgment gives suicide its social power, its ability to make the world a better place. Suicide shouldn't be a neutral act. If we don't judge suicide -- as either good or bad -- then the non-existence of another human being means nothing at all. If suicide is just a medical treatment, there's no room for forgiveness, because there's no room to judge the suicide as good or bad. And if suicide is just a medical treatment, then how can we convince the lovelorn twenty-year old that life is worth it? Or encourage the disabled to continue living?== Unnecessary ==First, euthanasia is unnecessary because patients have the right to refuse medical care. The right to refuse medical care is a better alternative than euthanasia because patients -- rather than doctors -- take all moral responsibility for what happens to them.Second, euthanasia is unnecessary because patients can commit suicide on their own. There's no need for euthanasia if patients can kill themselves.Third, as an alternative to euthanasia, I'd recommend legalizing assisted suicide instead, which has all the benefits of euthanasia, but with one key distinction: doctors don't kill the patient. This is important because it ensures that patients retain moral responsibility instead of shifting moral responsibility for their own deads to the doctors. Finally, as an alternative to both euthanasia and assisted suicide, I recommend making deadly drugs freely available to the public. This would remove the need for euthanasia or assisted suicide, as patients could simply buy some deadly drugs and kill themsevles without any problem. The few who take deadly drugs wouldn't need the blessing of a doctor, and for those anxious about how they'll die, a vial sitting on a shelf might reassure and quell their anxiety. There'd be no risk of abuse. And there'd be no intent by doctors to cause death. This is the best result and should be preferred to legalizing euthanasia.

Euthanasia should be legalized 1. ImmoralOne of the most famous philosophers of ethics was Immanuel Kant. He came up with a system of figuring out if an action was moral or not called the Categorical imperative. The Categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. In using the this method Kant condemned all forms of suicide by saying the purpose pain is to protect one’s life [1] , such as taking your hand out of a fire because it burns, and by using pain as a reason to end one’s life was contradictory to the purpose of pain and was therefore immoral. We usually strive to be moral beings, so we should avoid from having immoral acts.2. SubjectivityDue to the laws subjectivity there are never clear answers. In the Oregon Death with Dignity act Terminal Illness is defined as “means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months" [2] Things such as pain, suffering, or terminal illnesses are all subjective and you could get different opinions between different doctors, and why is the limit six months for physician assisted suicide and not four or eight months? There is no sound medical reason for why six months are chosen. Also, how do you measure pain? Does it include mental or physical? In Belgium people have been euthanized for depression, anorexia, and going blind. [7]Since there is subjectivity, it makes the law hard to enforce and have safeguards for.3. Right to DieThe courts have ruled on physician assisted suicide and there was no constitutional right to die. In the case Washington v. Glucksberg the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Washington’s ban on physician assisted suicide was not a violation of the fourteenth amendment and there was no constitutional right to die. [3] They ruled the same in the similar case of Vacco v. Quill. As far as the courts are concerned there is currently no legal right to euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.4. Slippery SlopeThe legalization of voluntary euthanasia/physician assisted suicide would lead down a slippery slope to other non-voluntary euthanasia. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2001 but have they gone down the slippery slope? In 2004 the Netherlands passed something called the Groningen Protocol. This allows the non-voluntary euthanasia of infants. [4] So, as far as the slippery slope is concerned the Netherlands is well on their way down and there nothing stopping other countries from following.We should not legalize PAS because it will lead to other more damaging things.5. Voluntary?Voluntary euthanasia is not as voluntary as you might think. The most famous euthanasia program was the one that took the lives of eleven million people in the 1940s, the infamous holocaust. The victims of the Nazis were Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, Homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and people with disabilities. In particular the Nazis attacked people with disabilities with a propaganda campaign portraying them as burdens to society and their families. "The principal reason people in a 1991 Boston Globe survey said they would consider some option to end their lives if they had “an incurable illness with a great deal of physical pain” was not the pain, not the “restricted lifestyle,” and not the fear of being “dependent of machines,” but rather that they “don’t want to be a burden” to their families. Family members who support the suicide of a terminally ill patient often unwittingly reinforce the notion that the ill family member’s life has lost all meaning and value and is nothing but a “burden.”" [5] "Many elderly people already feel a burden to family, carers and a society which is cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request euthanasia 'freely and voluntarily'. These patients need to hear that they are valued and loved as they are. They need to know that we are committed first and foremost to their well-being, even if this does involve expenditure of time and money. The way we treat the weakest and most vulnerable people speaks volumes about the kind of society we are" [6] So, voluntary euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide is almost as voluntary as in Nazi Germany. I look forward to my opponent's response.Sources[1] http://www.siue.edu...[2] http://euthanasia.procon.org...[3] http://www.oyez.org...[4] http://www.nejm.org...[5] https://www.nrlc.org...[6] http://www.ethicsforschools.org...[7] http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com...

Euthanasia ===Definitions=== Euthanasia: "Good death" painless death that is sometimes is categorized as assisted suicide. Includes Passive and Active forms Incurable Disease: A disease that has no known successful cure. Painful disease: A disease that inflicts extreme amounts of pain. IMPORTANT: ONLY TO BE USED WITH INCURABLE ILLNESSES. NOT FOR ANYONE WHO REQUESTS IT. ===Contentions=== 1. "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court's recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death. A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained." 2. "At the Hemlock Society we get calls daily from desperate people who are looking for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives which have lost all quality... Americans should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights -- the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent." 3. Individuals have a right to die when life becomes excruciating or undignified Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future ahead of them: the gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to ‘control' their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and die with dignity. Chantal Sebire, a 52- year-old Dijon schoolteacher, suffering from a rare disease that has left her disfigured by facial tumors, said in 2008 to Time magazine: "I no longer accept this enduring pain, and this protruding eye that nothing can be done about. I want to go out celebrating, surrounded by my children, friends, and doctors before I'm put to sleep definitively at dawn."[2] From the Time article, "Making a Case for Euthanasia". Mar. 15, 2008, "Sebire and her backers retort that preventing her from getting medical assistance to end her life swiftly and painlessly ensures months or years of additional torment from pain. Her death will come, they say, after a long coma that will reduce her to being nothing but an inanimate burden on her family." Forcing a person to stay on life support in excruciating pain is cruel French President Nicholas Sarkozy said in a 2007 campaign speech, "when I hear debates on euthanasia, I tell myself that while I respect the principles, the convictions, at the bottom of my heart I still say there are limits to the suffering that can be imposed on a human." Euthanasia can be appropriate when a person is no longer themselves. The most sacred element of a person is their identity as individual and a soul. Once this is lost, much of the sanctity and fulfillment in life is lost. While this is not a full justification for euthanasia, it is a salient factor. 4. Individuals have a right to hasten death, not merely to refuse treatment Compassion in Dying v. Washington. United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. March 6, 1996 - "While some people refer to the liberty interest implicated in right-to-die cases as a liberty interest in committing suicide, we do not describe it that way. We use the broader and more accurate terms, 'the right to die,' 'determining the time and manner of one's death,' and 'hastening one's death' for an important reason. The liberty interest we examine encompasses a whole range of acts that are generally not considered to constitute 'suicide.' Included within the liberty interest we examine, is for example, the act of refusing or terminating unwanted medical treatment... 5. * Removing life support causes an excruciating death; euthanasia is more humane The Terri Shiavo case is illustrative of the situation created by the illegality of euthanasia. A choice was made that Terri Shiavo's death was imminent and that should should be allowed to die. Without the option of euthanasia, her feeding tubes were removed, and she was starved to death. How is that more moral than euthanasia? Forcing patients to starve to death or go into cardiac arrest, simply because the option of euthanasia does not exist, is a cruel alternative. * Euthanasia is better than non-treatment ways to shorten lives and end suffering Doctors are allowed to make non-treatment decisions in special cases in order to shorten the life of a patient and end their suffering. This is a roundabout form of "euthanasia" that causes patients far more harm than a real euthanasia would. Doctors should be allowed to use euthanasia to avoid having to make these Non-Treatment decisions. * Life can be prolonged unnaturally; euthanasia is a necessary cut-off option Life can be kept "alive" for longer and longer periods with modern technologies and techniques. Is this natural? No. Is it excessive? It certainly can be. When keeping life "alive" becomes an excessive exercise in medicine and technology, a cut-off point become necessary. That cut-off point is euthanasia. This argument will become increasingly relevant into the future, as human-beings are kept alive with dozens of test tubes and transplants. ===Sources=== http://www.time.com...... http://www.euthanasiaprocon.org...... http://www.dignityindying.org.uk...... http://euthanasia.procon.org...... http://euthanasia.procon.org...... ===Conclusion=== Imagine you have some type of incredibly painful disease where you feel like you are being skinned alive and burned, would you want to end your suffering? Or would you want to want to live it out in extreme pain and suffering, then die. In any case, it's either die now and not live to see a few more days of your life and have a painless death, or die later, see a few more days of a hospital wall, then die painfully. Which would you choose?

Death: Should There Be A Choice Arguments For Legal Euthanasia1. euthanasia is “inevitable, so it's better to have it out in the open so that it can be properly regulated and carried out.Murder is also inevitable, so should we have that out in the open and regulate it? The obvious answer is no, and which is why inevitability is never a good argument to propose for anything.2. Euthanasia may provide a cost-effective way of dealing with dying people. Where health resources are scarce, not considering euthanasia might deprive society of the resources needed to help people with curable illnesses.This is repulsive to think we are going to be judging people if they are worth the resources to give them possibly life saving procedures, and there is already evidence of such actions going on in places where the practices are legal. One notable case isBarbara Wagner in Oregon in which an insurance company refused to pay for a drug to help her with her lung cancer, but the company was willing to pay for the drugs for physician assisted suicide [1].3. It is cruel and inhumane to refuse someone the right to die, when they are suffering intolerable and unstoppable pain, or distress.It ignore advancements in medical technology to relieve pain, but euthanaisa are not pain relieving or improves quality of life. Pain relief technology has come a long way “A century ago, high blood pressure, pneumonia, appendicitis, and diabetes likely meant death, often accompanied by excruciating pain. Women had shorter life expectancies than men since many died in childbirth” [2]. Now we have methods like using morphine, which is over 80% effective for everyone at relieve pain; also, we have opiates, which have been effective for chronic pain [3]. Further, euthanasia doesn’t actually relieve pain. To explain, sedation just makes you unresponsive to the pain, but once you wake up the pain would still be there because nothing was done to target the pain. Euthanasia is like sedation in the way that it just makes you unresponsive to pain, and nothing was done to target the pain itself. Medicine should be focused on killing the pain not the patient. To say euthanasia relives pain would be equivalent to saying that euthanasia stops cancer from spreading. In a way they are both sort of right, but no doctor would ever recommend euthanasia to fight cancer, so why they do so for pain? 4. Human beings have the right to decide when and how to die. it is becoming less of a choice and more coercion; further, in countries where VE is legal the quality Palliative care, end of life care, is becoming harder to obtain which is actually limiting choices rather than expand it like proponents claim. For example in the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal there are problems. Although the Dutch government has attempted to stimulate palliative care at six major medical centres throughout the Netherlands, established more than 100 hospices and provide for training professionals caring for terminally ill patients, many physicians choose the easier option of euthanasia rather than train in palliative care [4]. Further, according to Herbert Hendin, MD, “Data from patient interviews, surveys of families of patients receiving end-of-life care in Oregon, surveys of physicians' experience and data from the few cases where information has been made available suggest the inadequacy of end-of-life care in Oregon” [5]. Arguments Against Legal Euthanasia1. It is opposed by all major religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Islam, and Buddhism. They all believe that human life is a gift from God, and no human being should get rid of such a gift” [6]. Critics will be the first to point out that we have a separation of church and state, and they are partially right. In the United States we still print “In God we trust” on our money and have “under God” in the pledge; however, this may give people a personal reason to oppose it, but may not be enough to enforce laws against it. There are also secular reasons to oppose Euthanasia. 2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia, than learn techniques for caring for the dying which undermines the quality of medicine availableThe American Medical Association, along with many other health organizations filed a brief with the Supreme Court during the Washington v. Glucksberg case, stating “properly trained health care professionals can effectively meet their patients’ needs for compassionate end-of-life care without acceding to requests for suicide” [7]. Dr. Hendin also shown “Studies show that the less physicians know about palliative care, the more they favor assisted suicide or euthanasia; the more they know, the less they favor it”, and “Euthanasia, intended originally for the exceptional case, became an accepted way of dealing with serious or terminal illness in the Netherlands. In the process, palliative care became one of the casualties, while hospice care has lagged behind that of other countries” 3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient and people cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted.. When it comes to normative ethics, there are two schools of thought utilitarianism, and Kantianism. Utilitarianism is “to act in the manner that determines the most positive consequences and the less negative ones” [8]. “The motive behind this pragmatic approach lies in the finding of a disproportionate growing trend of health expenses in the last month of the terminal patients’ life” [8]. This model of ethics makes it ethical to use euthanasia because it saves medical resources, and unethical to keep living and using those medical resources. This re-enforces the idea that legal Euthanasia actually limits choices and coerces people. Since, in this theory, the focus of moral evaluations is based on the consequences of the action towards others, it is impossible to know if you are doing a moral action. If because a patient chooses euthanasia to save medical resources, and now they are able to save a future mass murder from dying then they would have done an immoral action. This makes this theory a poor way to figure out if euthanasia is actually immoral or not. Further, in this moral theory there is no human rights since any action like murder could be moral if the majority benefited, so this isn’t a moral theory that people would want to follow. The other theory of Kantianism which gives a clearer answer. Kant believed we derive morality from rationality in which he proposed an unwavering moral law called the categorical imperitive [9]. Kant said to determine if an action is moral or not you would have to make that action a universal law that everyone must follow, and if that action caused any contradictions then it is an immoral action. “Kant would not agree with anybody who out of self-love decides to take his/her life. This is because this is a system that aims at destroying life; hence this maxim could not possibly exist as a universal law” [9]. This moral theory better explains if euthanasia is immoral or not, and better matches what the average person would believe, since in this theory we have human rights. 4. that it is un-ethical for doctors to give such procedures; such practices violate the Hippocratic Oath, and Voluntary euthanasia gives power which can be too easily abused The Hippocratic Oath was made to define the doctor’s proper role and medical ethics. Hippocrates states “the doctor to do whatever is for the benefit of the patient, and to give no deadly medicine if asked, nor suggest such counsel” [10]. To have legal euthanasia would violate centuries of well established and respected medical ethics. These medical ethics have been carried on by modern medical associations like General Medical Council, and British Medical Association [10]. Without this rule, doctors can abuse their role as a trusted professional. For example, “The government-sanctioned studies suggest an erosion of medical standards in the care of terminally ill patients in the Netherlands when … more than 50% of Dutch doctors feel free to suggest euthanasia to their patients, and 25% admit to ending patients' lives without their consent” [5]. Frankly, it is disturbing that any ending patients’ lives without consent is even accepted little alone so wide spread. Also, if doctors suggest euthanasia, they are essentially giving up at their position as trying to help/cure the patient. Sources[1] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[2] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[4] http://www.life.org.nz...[5] http://www.psychiatrictimes.com...[6] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[7] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[8] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[9] http://www.academia.edu...[10] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...

Euthanasia Euthanasia: "Good death" painless death that is sometimes is categorized as assisted suicide. Includes Passive and Active forms Incurable Disease: A disease that has no known successful cure. Painful disease: A disease that inflicts extreme amounts of pain. 1. "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court's recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death. A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained." 2. "At the Hemlock Society we get calls daily from desperate people who are looking for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives which have lost all quality... Americans should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights -- the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent." 3. Individuals have a right to die when life becomes excruciating or undignified Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future ahead of them: the gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to ‘control' their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and die with dignity. Chantal Sebire, a 52- year-old Dijon schoolteacher, suffering from a rare disease that has left her disfigured by facial tumors, said in 2008 to Time magazine: "I no longer accept this enduring pain, and this protruding eye that nothing can be done about. I want to go out celebrating, surrounded by my children, friends, and doctors before I'm put to sleep definitively at dawn."[2] From the Time article, "Making a Case for Euthanasia". Mar. 15, 2008, "Sebire and her backers retort that preventing her from getting medical assistance to end her life swiftly and painlessly ensures months or years of additional torment from pain. Her death will come, they say, after a long coma that will reduce her to being nothing but an inanimate burden on her family." Forcing a person to stay on life support in excruciating pain is cruel French President Nicholas Sarkozy said in a 2007 campaign speech, "when I hear debates on euthanasia, I tell myself that while I respect the principles, the convictions, at the bottom of my heart I still say there are limits to the suffering that can be imposed on a human." Euthanasia can be appropriate when a person is no longer themselves. The most sacred element of a person is their identity as individual and a soul. Once this is lost, much of the sanctity and fulfillment in life is lost. While this is not a full justification for euthanasia, it is a salient factor. 4. Individuals have a right to hasten death, not merely to refuse treatment Compassion in Dying v. Washington. United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. March 6, 1996 - "While some people refer to the liberty interest implicated in right-to-die cases as a liberty interest in committing suicide, we do not describe it that way. We use the broader and more accurate terms, 'the right to die,' 'determining the time and manner of one's death,' and 'hastening one's death' for an important reason. The liberty interest we examine encompasses a whole range of acts that are generally not considered to constitute 'suicide.' Included within the liberty interest we examine, is for example, the act of refusing or terminating unwanted medical treatment... 5. * Removing life support causes an excruciating death; euthanasia is more humane The Terri Shiavo case is illustrative of the situation created by the illegality of euthanasia. A choice was made that Terri Shiavo's death was imminent and that should should be allowed to die. Without the option of euthanasia, her feeding tubes were removed, and she was starved to death. How is that more moral than euthanasia? Forcing patients to starve to death or go into cardiac arrest, simply because the option of euthanasia does not exist, is a cruel alternative. * Euthanasia is better than non-treatment ways to shorten lives and end suffering Doctors are allowed to make non-treatment decisions in special cases in order to shorten the life of a patient and end their suffering. This is a roundabout form of "euthanasia" that causes patients far more harm than a real euthanasia would. Doctors should be allowed to use euthanasia to avoid having to make these Non-Treatment decisions. * Life can be prolonged unnaturally; euthanasia is a necessary cut-off option Life can be kept "alive" for longer and longer periods with modern technologies and techniques. Is this natural? No. Is it excessive? It certainly can be. When keeping life "alive" becomes an excessive exercise in medicine and technology, a cut-off point become necessary. That cut-off point is euthanasia. This argument will become increasingly relevant into the future, as human-beings are kept alive with dozens of test tubes and transplants. Sources: http://www.time.com... http://www.euthanasiaprocon.org... http://www.dignityindying.org.uk... http://euthanasia.procon.org... http://euthanasia.procon.org... Conclusion: Imagine you have some type of incredibly painful disease where you feel like you are being skinned alive and burned, would you want to end your suffering? Or would you want to want to live it out in extreme pain and suffering, then die. In any case, it's either die now and not live to see a few more days of your life and have a painless death, or die later, see a few more days of a hospital wall, then die painfully. Which would you choose?

Euthanasia should be legal To respond to your acceptance message, I do agree that it would be regulated, however I think it would be naive to assume that this regulation would be without loopholes or insusceptible to a slippery slope. My arguments are mainly sociological, and that legalisation of euthanasia would be detrimental to society. If we allow euthanasia to be legalised, we state as a society that life only has extrinsic, not intrinsic value. What I mean by this is that euthanasia legalisation makes a statement that life is only good insofar as we have use for it or if it benefits society, as opposed to the morally preferable state of valuing life intrinsically; it is good in itself and we should value it even if the owner is ill, elderly or a burden on society. According to most ethical theories it is beneficial to society to value life intrinsically, not extrinsically and so euthanasia is a negative step on the path to an Utopian society. My second point is that euthanasia is simply unnecessary. Pain relief is so advanced nowadays that pain can be relieved without resorting to killing. Why legalise something detrimental to society when it is unneeded? Furthermore, legalising euthanasia is not productive to modern medical progress. If it becomes commonplace for people to commit suicide when suffering from a particular disease then what motivation is there to find a cure for it? Finally, people's moral compass is very much influenced by law. For example, if tax evasion was to be legalised then people would feel less morally guilty for doing it. Therefore, if we legalise euthanasia then suicide will not be considered as immoral as it is now. The terrible consequence of this would be that suicide is seen as an acceptable potential solution to hardship, and therefore more people at the depths of depression will commit suicide. People also have an inclination for martyrdom; the sacrificing of one's life for the benefit of others. With no legal prevention of this, elderly people will feel expected, pressurised or simply altruistically inclined to seek euthanasia when they can. People hate being a burden and so will often opt to 'go quietly' instead of relying on their state or family. This would be a tragic waste of the value and wisdom that the elderly can give to the young. I personally know an old lady who often drifts into suicidal thoughts and, given the legal allowance, would not hesitate to be euthanised when she feels this way. However, she can also be very happy with her family and friends at times, and all this would be snuffed out by euthanasia.

Euthanasia Euthanasia should be legal in the United States. However, only when voluntary. A person has the right to life, and therefore they also have the right to die. Why should they suffer if they don't have to or don't want to any longer? Nobody should have to suffer for a longer period of time if they don't want to. Being terminally ill and fighting for so long is suffering enough. They must grow tired of it and if there is a way to end the suffering peacefully and safely then people should at least have the choice to choose assisted suicide.

Euthanasia should be legalized I will argue that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized. My main arguments will be that it is the individual's, not the state's, right to decide whether one should die or not and that it is inhuman to prolong the suffering of those that are fatally and painfully ill by preventing them from making the choice to die quickly. I present the model. Euthanasia clinics where the patients can make the unpressured choice whether to die. The patients would be subjected to proffesional phsycological tests to determine their mental state and would be killed by an injection of pentobarbitol which is a tried and tested drug for human euthanasia. I eagerly await a challenger.

Euthanasia Must Be Legalized Euthanasia allows the patients who are suffering deadly diseases to end their pains and die with dignity. It must be legalized and should be deemed one of the basic human rights. I will wait for the opponent to enter.

Euthanasia Should be Legalized Being terminally ill and wishing to put your self at peace is not suicide. Terminal illness:Terminal illness is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient within a short period of time. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma. In popular use, it indicates a disease that eventually ends the life of the sufferer .http://en.wikipedia.org... Con's point's aren't very clear. He's basically saying that M.D practicing is much more important than not letting a person suffer. Here are some more points as to which it should be legalized. "Doctors are the people responsible for treating a person"s disease. They are the one who combat death and improve the quality of health of a person. In particular times, doctors can"t do anything if a patient has a terminal disease but to wait for death to arrive. This moment can be very painful for the patient as well as his family and relatives. Euthanasia must be legalized and practiced in times that the patient requests for it to avoid economic burden. If it is not being practiced, it will result to increased suffering of the patient and violating his rights. " http://www.knowswhy.com... Most of us fear death, but a large part of that fear comes from uncertainty and the worry that it might be preceded by agonizing pain (like a car wreck, say). If we knew exactly when we were going to die"and knew for a fact it would be painless"it"s a fair bet that fear would simply melt away. By allowing people to choose the how and when of their death, we"re guaranteeing they"ll live what remaining life they have to the fullest, free from the pain of anxiety. Don"t believe me? Well, here"s author Terry Pratchett saying pretty much the exact same thing. After being diagnosed with a rare form of Alzheimer"s, the Discworld writer became a campaigner for assisted dying. In his own words: "As I have said, I would like to die peacefully with Thomas Tallis on my iPod before the disease takes me over and I hope that will not be for quite some time to come, because if I knew that I could die at any time I wanted, then suddenly every day would be as precious as a million pounds. If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice." The famous maxim "do no harm" is a summation of the Hippocratic Oath"an ancient code designed to guide doctors in their actions. Many people interpret this to mean "do nothing to harm the patient"s chances of survival." But, taken literally, it could just as easily mean "don"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable." It all comes down to what we believe constitutes "harm." When a patient is in intense pain or suffering severe mental anguish, our society could be doing more harm by keeping them alive than allowing them to die. In extreme cases, such as those of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb above, it could be argued that any physician who didn"t alleviate their suffering when asked was violating the principles of their oath"and allowing both great harm and a great injustice to occur on their watch. At the end of the day, it"s up for us to decide whether we can sit back and watch people suffer, or choose to do something about it. Until we make up our minds, that suffering will continue. No-one should force you to be in pain. They don't know how you feel or how agonizing it is to have a terminal illness. This definitely should be the patients choice, to continuing suffering, or to do as they wish, sleep peacefully. Sources: The famous maxim "do no harm" is a summation of the Hippocratic Oath"an ancient code designed to guide doctors in their actions. Many people interpret this to mean "do nothing to harm the patient"s chances of survival." But, taken literally, it could just as easily mean "don"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable." The famous maxim "do no harm" is a summation of the Hippocratic Oath"an ancient code designed to guide doctors in their actions. Many people interpret this to mean "do nothing to harm the patient"s chances of survival." But, taken literally, it could just as easily mean "don"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable." It all comes down to what we believe constitutes "harm." When a patient is in intense pain or suffering severe mental anguish, our society could be doing more harm by keeping them alive than allowing them to die. In extreme cases, such as those of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb above, it could be argued that any physician who didn"t alleviate their suffering when asked was violating the principles of their oath"and allowing both great harm and a great injustice to occur on their watch. At the end of the day, it"s up for us to decide whether we can sit back and watch people suffer, or choose to do something about it. Until we make up our minds, that suffering will continue. It all comes down to the patient, they have free will, they are able to make their own decisions , either to continuing suffering in agonizing pain, or sleep peacefully. Sources: http://listverse.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.knowswhy.com...

Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal In light of Jack Kevorkian speaking at my school tonight, I offer up this debate to anyone who wishes to take it on. Bottom line, physician-assisted suicide should be legal. It is absurd that anyone or any group should have the authority to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own life with regard to this issue. I believe it to be the height of arrogance that someone can feel as though they can enforce their morality on someone suffering from a terminal disease. The overly moralistic person is not feeling the pain. They will not be affected in any way whether the dying person takes their own life or if they needlessly prolong their suffering. Yet, they insist on using the government to enforce their morality on people they don't even know. A dying person, suffering from cancer or some other horrific illness that promises nothing but a slow, painful death, should be able to die on their own terms, with dignity. I eagerly await someone to accept my open challenge.

Euthanasia should be legal First I will make my argument against euthanasia and secondly I will respond to your original questions. My argument will be based on 3 points: Mixed Messages Further Implications Alternative Options *************************************************************************************************************** Mixed Messages The first point to my argument is that euthanasia sends mixed messages to society about the value of our own lives and the tragedy of suicide. This is because in its essence euthanasia (or doctor assisted suicide) is by its nature suicide. Now put aside the factors that lead people to this decision and ask yourself, is suicide a good thing? I think the answer for most of us is no, as it should be. Since killing ourselves goes against human nature objectively speaking suicide is morally wrong. Now when considering those with serious illness does the morality of the act change? But before one answers this question I think a prior question needs to be answered. Is deep depression a serious illness? I think the answer is yes, and many psychologists and those who study the brain would agree, depression is an illness that can sometimes be incurable [1]. Now take into account how society responds to teenage, middle age, or any depression related suicide. We mourn, and we mourn because we all know that what has happened is a tragedy. We know that regardless of the individual’s illness their life was worth preserving and that this is a tragedy. So what message does this send to people with suicidal thoughts that if your illness is visible it's okay to kill yourself? But if you who are arguably just as sick with deep depression, killing yourself is a failure and a tragedy. As a society we spend millions of dollars (and rightly so) to prevent suicide in our culture. Why then is it okay to also spend millions of dollars to publicly subsides and praise the suicide of others. Who gets to say to the 31 year old with deep depression that he isn't just as sick as the 91 year old with a tumor? Instead let’s promote one unified message to all people, your live if worth living until its natural end, and we will do whatever it takes to make it as liveable as possible. Further Implications In countries that have legalized euthanasia predictable trends have emerged. As I mentioned in my first point, questions start to be raised as to who gets to decide who dies? How can the government tell one person it’s okay and another it’s not? Well in the Netherlands they are learning the hard way that once you deny that suicide is objectively wrong, no one has the right to tell anyone else that suicide isn't a good option for them. Take the Dutch woman, who was allowed to die because of PTSD from sexual abuse. "A woman in her 20s who suffered sexual abuse as a child has been permitted to undergo euthanasia in the Netherlands. She was given a lethal injection after doctors and psychiatrists determined that her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and continuing conditions including chronic depression and suicidal mood swings could not be cured." [2] Or the Swiss woman, who was euthanized because she was "tired of life". “She was not terminally ill, nor was she particularly severely disabled, yet she could not find much enjoyment in living anymore and felt the time was right to say goodbye.” [3] The logical ramifications of saying suicide is not objectively wrong is that no one can say it’s wrong. And going back to my pervious point, if we can't say to young people it’s okay to kill yourself then we can't say it to anyone. Alternative Options My last point doesn't address why euthanasia is objectively wrong but rather why it's not needed as much as we think. Currently there exist options for those in incredible (physical) suffering to be given what is called palliative care. Palliative care doctors concentrate on preventing and alleviating suffering, improving your quality of life, and helping you and your loved ones cope with the stress and burden of your illness [4]. This kind of care can relive many of the symptoms of the terminally ill and provide them and their families with support through the process. This kind of option should it be properly funded would replace the need for euthanasia in our societies. The last point on this is that studies have shown that terminally ill patients have chosen death mostly because of a loss of dignity. "The primary reason given (in The Netherlands) for choosing euthanasia is “a loss of dignity". [5] If we can show terminally ill patients that their lives and their comfort do matter through the use of palliative care then we eliminate the desire for euthanasia. Conclusion Euthanasia is wrong because of the mixed messages it sends, the implications it has on society, and the alternatives that make it unnecessary Sources: 1. http://news.nationalpost.com... 2. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... 3. http://www.express.co.uk... 4. http://palliativedoctors.org... 5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...; Response In response to you original questions, I think I have answered, that just as we shouldn't allow young people with serious depressing to end their life we also shouldn't let people who have lost their dignity to do so. As far as the personal freedom argument goes we should not be free to do whatever we please but rather only what is right. Do the laws that say you can't chop your own arm off mean you aren’t free? No, because we should only have the freedom to do what is right not whatever we please.

That we should legalise Euthanasia for terminal illnesses Currently in our society, there are millions of people suffering from terminal diseases like cancer and heart diseases. Those people know that they are going to die, but has to endure the excruciating pain of the illness. Because the pain is unbearable and continuous, they will want to end their lives. Those people see no future and therefore should be able to end their lives by assisted suicide. It is not humane to make people go through this extreme pain and suffering, when it is evident that they will be cured of their diseases. Therefore, it is evident that euthanasia should be legalised for people with terminal illnesses.

Euthanasia Euthanasia should be legalized because people that is suffering should have the rigth to decide if they want to do euthanasia. Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people should approve it.

Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America While pain medication is an option for providing comfort towards the end on a person's life, there is only so much medicine can do. For example, look at Tay-Sachs Disease, a degenerative brain disorder primarily affecting Ashkenazi Jews that typically begins at the ages of six months and causes the child to lose their skills over time. By the time the child is three, they are completely paralyzed, nonverbal, unable to swallow, blind, cognitively impaired, and have constant seizures that do not respond to medication. There is nothing you can do for that child but watch them die. That is why euthanasia needs to be an option. It is an act of mercy. Also, to prevent the DNR type document from being falsified as with any legal document there would need to be a witness at such a signing.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill The fact of the matter, my opponent has no logical reasoning other than a religious one for denying the right to die in patient. Just as life is an unalienable right, by logic, death is the end result of life and cannot logically be denied. Is it fair to force one to suffer? Of course not. If we deny terminally ill patient their right to a timely death, then the rational thought going through the patient's mind must be committing suicide alone. We shouldn't force that to be a result. If a patient requests their death to be on their own terms and not have to face that task alone, we should honor that right. I once again request that may opponent adhere to the topic at hand.

Euthanasia should be legalized with requirements I wish him good luck and hope for thoughtful responses. I will present my opening arguments here.1. ImmoralOne of the most famous philosophers of ethics was Immanuel Kant. He came up with a system of figuring out if an action was moral or not called the Categorical imperative. The Categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. In using the this method Kant condemned all forms of suicide by saying the purpose pain is to protect one’s life [1] , such as taking your hand out of a fire because it burns, and by using pain as a reason to end one’s life was contradictory to the purpose of pain and was therefore immoral. We usually strive to be moral beings, so we should avoid from having immoral acts.2. SubjectivityDue to the laws subjectivity there are never clear answers. In the Oregon Death with Dignity act Terminal Illness is defined as “means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months" [2] Things such as pain, suffering, or terminal illnesses are all subjective and you could get different opinions between different doctors, and why is the limit six months for physician assisted suicide and not four or eight months? There is no sound medical reason for why six months are chosen. Also, how do you measure pain? Does it include mental or physical? In Belgium people have been euthanized for depression, anorexia, and going blind. [7]Since there is subjectivity, it makes the law hard to enforce and have safeguards for.3. Right to DieThe courts have ruled on physician assisted suicide and there was no constitutional right to die. In the case Washington v. Glucksberg the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Washington’s ban on physician assisted suicide was not a violation of the fourteenth amendment and there was no constitutional right to die. [3] They ruled the same in the similar case of Vacco v. Quill. As far as the courts are concerned there is currently no legal right to euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.4. Slippery SlopeThe legalization of voluntary euthanasia/physician assisted suicide would lead down a slippery slope to other non-voluntary euthanasia. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2001 but have they gone down the slippery slope? In 2004 the Netherlands passed something called the Groningen Protocol. This allows the non-voluntary euthanasia of infants. [4] So, as far as the slippery slope is concerned the Netherlands is well on their way down and there nothing stopping other countries from following. We should not legalize PAS because it will lead to other more damaging things.5. Voluntary? Voluntary euthanasia is not as voluntary as you might think. The most famous euthanasia program was the one that took the lives of eleven million people in the 1940s, the infamous holocaust. The victims of the Nazis were Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, Homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and people with disabilities. In particular the Nazis attacked people with disabilities with a propaganda campaign portraying them as burdens to society and their families. "The principal reason people in a 1991 Boston Globe survey said they would consider some option to end their lives if they had “an incurable illness with a great deal of physical pain” was not the pain, not the “restricted lifestyle,” and not the fear of being “dependent of machines,” but rather that they “don’t want to be a burden” to their families. Family members who support the suicide of a terminally ill patient often unwittingly reinforce the notion that the ill family member’s life has lost all meaning and value and is nothing but a “burden. ”" [5] "Many elderly people already feel a burden to family, carers and a society which is cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request euthanasia 'freely and voluntarily'. These patients need to hear that they are valued and loved as they are. They need to know that we are committed first and foremost to their well-being, even if this does involve expenditure of time and money. The way we treat the weakest and most vulnerable people speaks volumes about the kind of society we are" [6] So, voluntary euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide is almost as voluntary as in Nazi Germany. 6. Pain ReliefPeople say euthanasia provides a way to relieve extreme pain. This is like saying cyanide relieves depression. It is true that they don"t feel pain anymore abut they don"t feel good because they are dead. Now try it with the other example. It is true that they don"t feel depressed anymore but they don"t feel good because they are dead. There is also ways to relieve pain besides death. "It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. 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. " [6] In countries with euthanasia Palliative care is poorly developed. [8]Sources[1] . http://www.siue.edu...[2] . http://euthanasia.procon.org...[3] . http://www.oyez.org...[4] . http://www.nejm.org...[5] . https://www.nrlc.org...[6] . http://www.ethicsforschools.org...[7] . http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com...[8] . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

voulentary euthanisa should be legal My sympathies to my opponent for feeling under the weather. I hope he gets well soon. On the surface, my opponent would like you to believe that his request is simple: to give suffering people a means by which they can escape their suffering. My goal, as the contender in this debate, is to show how my opponent's position fails in it's over simplification and reasoning. My opponent says quite plainly that he believes assisted suicide to be a right. In the same way that energy is never created or destroyed but always transferred or converted, entitlement rights carry with them the effect of suppressing rights of others. By nature, any right granted to an individual necessarily places a moral duty on others. The right to freedom of speech, for example, places a moral duty on others not to inhibit that freedom. The right to non-discrimination places a moral duty on employers to hire according to skill and ability alone. Moral duties, by their very nature, restrict one's freedom. Ergo, protecting the rights of some implies suppressing the freedom of others. Protecting rights is good, but we must not get carried away granting rights to everyone without consideration for the suppression of freedoms that accompany them. Therefore, in the case of euthanasia, we must consider the freedoms suppressed by its legalization. To do this, let us analyze two scenarios. In the first, euthanasia is not a right, not guaranteed by the state, and is in fact illegal--that no institution or individual succumb to abuses. In the second, euthanasia is legal and guaranteed by the state, forcing at least some institutions or individuals to comply so that the right to mercy killing is not denied or inhibited. In both scenarios we will consider two people groups: Patients seeking assisted suicide and doctors holding to the Hippocratic Oath so dearly as to be unwilling to ever perform such procedures. Case 1: Euthanasia Rights Denied - Patients Seeking Assisted Suicide: Freedoms inhibited. The only way out for these patients without placing others in legal jeopardy is to dispatch themselves. - Hippocratic Doctors: Total Freedom. These doctors can work and live wherever they choose without fear of compromise. Case 2: Euthanasia Rights Protected - Patients Seeking Assisted Suicide: Total Freedom. These patients can choose to die at the hands of a hospital or institution guaranteed to be within reasonable distance and affordability. - Hippocratic Doctors: Freedoms inhibited. These doctors my still be able to practice without compromising their convictions, but they will be limited where they can work and live and are not immune to litigation. Given this analysis, my opponent is mistaken in supposing that the legalization of euthanasia has only benefits and no consequences. In order to justify making euthanasia legal, he must show that it is indeed a fundamental right. The only justification he has so far offered is an appeal to emotion. He speaks of unbearable emotional trauma when watching a loved one suffering. He appeals to the personal experiences of those with terminal illness. This seems to be less an argument for the right to die as it is a right to not have to feel bad. Does my opponent truly suggest that doctors sworn to the Hippocratic oath ought to be in the awkward position of sacrificing their convictions in order to make others feel less sad? The fact that people hurt is not a sufficient reason to call euthanasia a legal right. Until my opponent can show that euthanasia is an inalienable right, his argument amounts to wishful thinking and emotional appeal. In my view, this is a terrible reason to infringe upon the Hippocratic Oath that so many doctors take to heart. This is made especially worse given that terminally ill patients are not currently prohibited from choosing their time of death. They are only limited as to HOW that death is carried out. To summarize, I argued in my first round that terminal illness is an arbitrary definition that has more to do with emotion than medical criteria. I further argued that claiming a ownership of life while deferring ownership of death is hypocritical and that the possible legal ramifications are too risky. In this round, I showed how my opponent fails to recognize that granting rights to one individual ultimately suppresses the freedoms of others and that, in this case, such action cannot be justified by a simple appeal to emotion. Euthanasia is not a right and should not be legal.

Euthanasia should not be legalized. Well argued. To the first point, I would ask if all people do (or should) have the freedom to live and die as they please. They certainly do not have the freedom to live as they please if they are breaking the law. We are not "free" in the selfish sense of the word (and never have been), but only free to recognize the social contract which has been forged for our benefit through centuries of trial and error. We may choose to reject the duties that bind us to that contract, but then we also may find that true freedom requires duty and thoughtfulness toward others. There is a growing myth which young people love, called "Personal bodily autonomy." The idea that what they do to themselves is no one's business but their own, and that the emotional or indirect pain their decisions cause to others is trumped by the supposed nobleness of their mandate to only harm themselves. Casual drug users (especially those whose drugs are obtained by association with violent criminals) are a shining example of this phenomenon. The argument can extend to suicide. A depressed teenager who destroys his family by ending his life over what he may have one day come to understand as a trivial issue should not be granted an admission of "bodily autonomy" for his ill-considered decision. There is no reason to believe that medically assisted "suicide watches" for those who have tried to harm themselves is an infringement on their freedom. Society has a vested interest in the value of each human life, in order to carry on the next generation. Yet more and more we are told of the virtue of autonomy; that the future of politicking is in defending the rights of citizens to pursue their own pleasures, desires, and whims at any cost, save the "direct" physical harm of others. The circumstance of the teenager is of course much different than that of the one who suffers pain in illness, but it is an important to bypass the notion that by sherry picking John Stuart Mill we can convince ourselves that we are totally free in our own bodies. Our society does allow ingratitude and selfishness to take precedence over participation, but these choices should not be held up as virtue. As for my opponent's thoughts on autonomy and involuntary euthanasia, I ask: who gets to decide the criteria of personhood? Is it the medical doctors whose evaluation procedures are based on a continuum of change, dependent on fresh scientific data? Ethical "experts" who grant themselves the status of philosopher kings? If there were truly such thing as an ethical expert, we would have no choice but to consider that person a god. The notion that anyone can claim such a position is appalling. My opponent claims that the system is secured with impediments to protect the vulnerable, while at the same time arguing that people "so" terminally ill that they will die, have no legal right to life. This is the exact sort of language that will make the change in these laws so incredibly dangerous, because it already assumes that human life loses value in unconsciousness, and loses all value when unconsciousness is the preamble to death. These terms are based in utility and function, and they forego any thought of unalterable human value. My argument is not for the perpetuation of torture, or to deny that people can suffer terribly in their last days, weeks, or months, but against the idea that we should trust in a bureaucracy to organize the implementation of "compassionate killing." Once an old law is destroyed it is nearly impossible to reconstruct, and the new law becomes easier to expand and undermine. Already we are seeing the laws being bent, reshaped or broken in Belgium, where nearly one third of euthanasia procedures in Flanders are happening without the patient"s consent (1). In fact, one out of every two cases of euthanasia are not even reported to a control committee (2). The laws are expanding rapidly in countries that also promised a secure and discretionary vision of assisted suicide. The latest change has been the movement to allow voluntary child euthanasia, (3) The point is, is that there is always a claim in political arguments about the rights of the individual in matters of life and death that the procedures used for termination will only be used sparingly and for a select few who have been screened to meet proper ethical guidelines. But as always happens when powerful lobbies push for radical changes in law, the momentum never ceases, the laws expand, and it becomes harder to contain the things they claimed they could control. The argument in favour of voluntary euthanasia is much stronger as it is hard to argue that forcing someone to suffer unimaginable pain is a morally sound option. But nevertheless, I'm unconvinced that anyone is actually being forced to endure suffering. There is a distinction between refusing medical care, (which is perfectly legal), and having another human kill you out of mercy. I don't think it's a fair assertion to say that doctors who refuse to kill their sick patients are guilty of torture. All measures are taken in palliative care to ensure the minimization of pain. If a patient wants to refuse life support, it is illegal for the doctor to ignore the request because that in fact would be forcing an extended and unwanted lifespan onto that person. He or she must adhere to the wishes of the patient so long as they perform no action that leads to an unnatural death. So, again, there is no legal mandate that forces suffering upon the sick. Illness and suffering are natural phenomenon that we all endure, and to deem this reality as the moral equivalent of torture is wrong. It will create a culture of fraudulent ethical guilt in the medical establishment, and as all new ideas become easier with repetition, the old morality will fade, and the killing of "unsalable" humans will become routine. In other words, "The doctor will not kill me, therefore he is torturing me," is a non-logical statement. The doctor does not inflict pain upon you, it is only the nature of your own biology and evolution. This is not to say that there shouldn't be a discussion about the brutality that illness can cause, and whether there are viable options to end that suffering in extreme cases, but it cannot be said that any human is torturing another human by doing nothing to them. Finally, this brings me to the point my opponent made about fear mongering. The claim that allowing euthanasia will create a social death spiral of murder-hungry citizens is indeed an exaggeration. But not on my part. I don't know who argues that such an openly apocalyptic scenario would unfold, but it's certainly a great satirical distraction from the quiet and slippery way that it actually would. Humans have an uncanny ability to lie to themselves, and most of us do not ponder morality in our day to day decision making. It's much easier to assume we are doing the right thing without examining ourselves thoroughly and logically. It is one thing to say that you feel the pain another endures, and quite another to actually feel it. It seems to me that taking on the decision whether to kill someone you are supposed to love is no small task, and would require more than just the liberty of the state to allow you to go ahead and do such a thing. What if you were wrong? What if in your heart you were just beaten down and tired, and you clutched onto that word "compassion" in order to convince yourself that what you were doing was morally acceptable? I don't know that it is so easy to assume that your intentions are sincere enough to warrant the killing of another. I do know that just because someone is your close relative, it does not guarantee they have your best interests at heart. Family members commit heinous acts against one another all the time. The users of this legislation will not all be humane people as we are led to believe. This law will open the door for every member of society. Even the heartless. Thank you.

Euthanasia should be Illegal Euthanasia should be illegal. Suicide is wrong. So why are we accepting it? Euthanasia: A legal way to commit suicide. Lets look at 5 main reasons why euthanasia should be Illegal: 1. Euthanasia is murder:Euthanasia, which comes from the Greek word eu thanatos meaning good or dignified death, is the conscious act of ending a life by withholding necessary treatment (passive euthanasia) or performing a procedure that directly and quickly causes death (active euthanasia). Although viewed by some as beneficial, both active and passive euthanasia are considered immoral, sinful, and in the same category as abortion " a murder. Murder is the act of intentionally taking the life of one person. Opponents of euthanasia, especially Catholics, believe that the practice is wrong because it is murder. Since God is the One who created us, He is also the only One who has the right to take our lives away. In fact, the sixth of the Ten Commandments states "Thou shall not kill." Therefore, any form of killing " regardless of motives " is not permissible. The so-called mercy killing or assisted killing is condemned by the Church. Just recently, a Vatican official criticized the death of Brittany Maynard, a cancer sufferer who took her life in November 2014 by assisted suicide. Maynard suffered from a brain tumor and decided to die when her pain became unbearable. Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said in an interview that "This woman took her own life thinking she would die with dignity, but this is the error" Suicide is not a good thing, it is a bad thing because it is saying no to life and to everything it means with respect to our mission In the world and towards those around us." 2. Euthanasia Gives Too Much Power To Doctors To Kill: Doctors are empowered by euthanasia. It gives them the opportunity to play God and most doctors, since many now more regard their profession as an occupation and not a passion, will seize this opportunity. This is especially true for those unscrupulous individuals.Many of us are unaware that a lot of doctors today are taking self-interested shortcuts in order to earn more or make things happen their way. For instance, in case of delivering babies; some doctors coerce their patients in unnecessary caesarian sections on weekdays in order to guarantee an interrupted weekend for themselves. In other medical case, some doctors pressure their patients to undergo a surgery right away in order to finally get rid of the patients. Some do even push their patients to go towards vaccination or take a certain medication, even if it"s unnecessary, just to make more money. Why, then, would they never be tempted to kill someone in the quickest way if it will benefit themselves in the end " like avoiding the troublesome case or eliminating the hassle of dealing with importunate family members?A perfect example of this would be Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a controversial pathologist, who took advantage of his patients" agony and murdered them. According to reports, his goals were to popularize assisted suicide, to harvest organs for transplantation, and the most appalling of all, to experiment the sick and injured patients. Kevorkian claimed that he had helped 130 ailing people end their lives. Imagine? But what"s worse about it was that he created a machine for suicide, which was called a "suicide machine," that allowed sick people dispense a lethal dose of medication to themselves by pressing a button. Later, the lunatic was convicted for second-degree murder, but unfortunately, he was not the only one who practiced this. In Netherlands, where euthanasia is allowed, thousands of people are killed each year "without request or consent."Doctors, like any other humans, are lazy, selfish, and weak to temptations. In pressing situations, doctors are likely to commit mistakes and make wrong decisions. Therefore, euthanasia should not be legalized. As Dr. Peter Saunders, a general surgeon and CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, has written: "Voluntary euthanasia makes the doctor the most dangerous (person) in the state." 3. Legalization Of Euthanasia Changes Public Conscience: The law is a powerful tool that can be used to change our beliefs, behavior, and conscience. When a practice becomes legal and widely accepted, it becomes right in the eyes of the society. Even if it is against our personal preference and principle, we eventually practice it and believe that it is perfectly okay. People trust the law because they believe that it is the best for the people " they believe that the law is always right. One case that demonstrates how law can affect the culture and public conscience was the assisted killing of the twin brothers, Marc and Eddy Verbessem. The two were born deaf and sought euthanasia after discovering that they would also soon go blind from another congenital disorder " a form of glaucoma. According to the Daily Telegraph, their local hospital had refused to carry out the procedure because the twin was neither suffering extreme physical pain nor terminally ill. Euthanasia is legal under Belgian law if a patient is able to make their wishes clear and suffering unbearable pain, based on a doctor"s judgment. Critics point out that the twin brothers were not suffering unbearable pain, but Professor Wim Distelmans, a right-to-die activist, took the decision to euthanize them. He even defended his decision and said, "There was certainly unbearable psychological suffering for them. Though there is of course it always possible to stretch the interpretation of that. One doctor will evaluate differently than the other." Dr. David Dufour, the doctor who presided over the euthanasia even said, ""It was a relief to see the end of their suffering." Then just days after the Verbessem brothers were killed by their doctor, Belgium"s ruling Socialists tabled a new legal amendment that will allow children and people suffering from dementia to seek permission to die.This just shows that once the society started to see that killing is okay, it is possible for people to do it without feeling any guilt. 4.Euthanasia Encourages Vulnerable People To End Their Lives: Euthanasia advocates promote the legalization of euthanasia as they believe that it is a way to protect "vulnerable people" from wrongful death and provide suffering patients their desired, peaceful "death with dignity." Opponents of the practice counter this with the defense that legalization of euthanasia doesn"t protect vulnerable people, rather it pressures them to make decisions unilaterally.If euthanasia is available, sick and dependent people will be pressured to choose death, rather than suffer and become a burden to their families. Yes, people who are dependent and ill often feel worthless and burden to their families. Since their body is so weak to work, they are not able to help and contribute to their families and communities. This makes them often feel worthless and useless. And this is the very reason why so many suffering people wish to die. But luckily, euthanasia is not yet permitted in most parts of the country and other parts of the world. But if it"s already available, no one can already stop these people from requesting assisted death. Patients and people with disabilities and problems will think that euthanasia is the only solution. 5. People Who Request Mercy Killing Don"t Actually Want To Die: In tough moments, especially in the presence of death, patients are highly vulnerable. They lack the knowledge and strength to understand entirely their situation, which usually affects their decisions. Many people think that the main reason why patients seek for physician assisted death is because of the pain associated with the illness, but the truth is it"s the fear of the unknown. They are terrified about the possible consequences of their illness, including the possibility of surviving without actually living and most of all, its impact to their families. In a survey conducted in Oregon, USA, 66 percent of people who requested euthanasia did so because they didn"t want to be a burden.But it"s also true that no one wants to die. Those people who say "let me die," usually don"t mean what they say, and in fact are thankful when their request is denied.The practice of euthanasia is an unwise and wrong choice. Sure, having an illness and being born with disability is tragic, but killing them is not the answer to their problem. What these people need is love and support from their friends, doctors, especially from their families. If these people will only see that we are caring for them and valuing their lives, they will be encouraged to continue life, no matter how painful it will get.Just look at Ludwig van Beethoven, Sudha Chandran, Tanny Grey-Thompson, and the famous Albert Einstein, as well as Sheryl Crow, Anne Romney, and Hugh Jackman " all these people suffered from life-threatening diseases and disabilities, but they still have contributed to the society and never thought about killing themselves. All these people encountered pain, but they never considered euthanasia as an answer " because it is not! Unfortunately Euthanasia is used to murder people that just don't want to live. According to Amy Craft who works at CBS NEWS, on August 4,2015 at 6:39 pm stated. A woman named Gill Pharaoh, who was only 75 yrs old from Britain with no heath issues, decided to end her life at a Swiss euthinasia clinic on July 21 with her spouse who was 25 by her side, begging her not to carry on with this. According to Daily Mail, Her Partner John Southall said Pharaoh had talked with family and friends about someday ending her life. Her decision to die was based on a desire to not grow old. Conclusion: Euthanasia is a hidden way to commit suicide. Do not let it deceive you. Murder is wrong. Young people are starting to commit this suicide. Good people are dying because of Euthanasia.

Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Not all pain can be alleviated with palliative care, so both assisted suicide and palliative care should be options for the patient."If the person would like to end their life right away" I support waiting a long time before proceeding with euthanasia in case the patient changes their mind.

should euthanasia be legalized A doctor"s function has changed over time. In the past, the doctor was a person who besides being your friend treated the diseases. Now a doctor is a stranger who combats diseases, but he/she is not always your friend. What will never change is their constant struggle against death. However, their job is not only to prevent death but also to improve their patient"s quality of life. Many times there is nothing a doctor can do to prevent a patient from dying if the patient has a terminal disease; all he/she can do is wait for death to arrive. This waiting time can be very painful for both the patients and the people who surround them. Not practicing euthanasia at the request of the dying person is violating a person"s rights, creating an economic burden, interfering with a doctor"s job, and increasing suffering have never been in a situation where I have to decide whether euthanasia should be applied to someone or not. But I tell you something: if I ever see myself in that kind of situation, I would have no doubt of agreeing with it. If it is the desire of the person to die, I will support him. I think that choosing how we want to die is not an option that we all get. So be sure I'll help someone on choosing when and how he wants to die. Just imagine yourself in a similar situation. Would you like to be helped by doctors and your friends to die the way you want it or be kept in a room where you can hardly move with machines keeping you alive? Why not end this suffering if we have the power? There is no point of waiting for the person to die if there is nothing the doctors can do about it. If the person wishes to die, we should please him with their last wish. This is why euthanasia should be legal for anyone who desires it.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill Let's not get distracted from the topic and please refrain from hurtful language such as "Are you cold or stupid?" While I'm not saying that it certainly can have an emotional effect on the doctor who goes through with the procedure, it should be understood that the doctor is not forced to do such acts. It will be a decision of his own as he will decide his own profession and also if he will offer an assisted suicide procedure. No doctor is being forced to help in the suicide of another. The famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian who helped in the suicide of at least 130 patients still advocated the procedure until his last breath. The point being that obviously certain people are capable of handling such practices. "Dying is not a crime." as Dr. Kevorkian once stated and is certainly not selfish. It is nothing but human nature to have a desire to maintain some control over one's life and ultimate death. Needless for me to point out that bringing religion into a political debate is hardly pertinent.

Euthanasia Arguments For Legal Euthanasia1. euthanasia is “inevitable, so it's better to have it out in the open so that it can be properly regulated and carried out.Murder is also inevitable, so should we have that out in the open and regulate it? The obvious answer is no, and which is why inevitability is never a good argument to propose for anything.2. Euthanasia may provide a cost-effective way of dealing with dying people. Where health resources are scarce, not considering euthanasia might deprive society of the resources needed to help people with curable illnesses.This is repulsive to think we are going to be judging people if they are worth the resources to give them possibly life saving procedures, and there is already evidence of such actions going on in places where the practices are legal. One notable case is Barbara Wagner in Oregon in which an insurance company refused to pay for a drug to help her with her lung cancer, but the company was willing to pay for the drugs for physician assisted suicide [1].3. It is cruel and inhumane to refuse someone the right to die, when they are suffering intolerable and unstoppable pain, or distress.It ignore advancements in medical technology to relieve pain, but euthanaisa are not pain relieving or improves quality of life. Pain relief technology has come a long way “A century ago, high blood pressure, pneumonia, appendicitis, and diabetes likely meant death, often accompanied by excruciating pain. Women had shorter life expectancies than men since many died in childbirth” [2]. Now we have methods like using morphine, which is over 80% effective for everyone at relieve pain; also, we have opiates, which have been effective for chronic pain [3]. Further, euthanasia doesn’t actually relieve pain. To explain, sedation just makes you unresponsive to the pain, but once you wake up the pain would still be there because nothing was done to target the pain. Euthanasia is like sedation in the way that it just makes you unresponsive to pain, and nothing was done to target the pain itself. Medicine should be focused on killing the pain not the patient. To say euthanasia relives pain would be equivalent to saying that euthanasia stops cancer from spreading. In a way they are both sort of right, but no doctor would ever recommend euthanasia to fight cancer, so why they do so for pain? 4. Human beings have the right to decide when and how to die. it is becoming less of a choice and more coercion; further, in countries where VE is legal the quality Palliative care, end of life care, is becoming harder to obtain which is actually limiting choices rather than expand it like proponents claim. For example in the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal there are problems. Although the Dutch government has attempted to stimulate palliative care at six major medical centres throughout the Netherlands, established more than 100 hospices and provide for training professionals caring for terminally ill patients, many physicians choose the easier option of euthanasia rather than train in palliative care [4]. Further, according to Herbert Hendin, MD, “Data from patient interviews, surveys of families of patients receiving end-of-life care in Oregon, surveys of physicians' experience and data from the few cases where information has been made available suggest the inadequacy of end-of-life care in Oregon” [5]. Arguments Against Legal Euthanasia1. It is opposed by all major religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Islam, and Buddhism. They all believe that human life is a gift from God, and no human being should get rid of such a gift” [6]. Critics will be the first to point out that we have a separation of church and state, and they are partially right. In the United States we still print “In God we trust” on our money and have “under God” in the pledge; however, this may give people a personal reason to oppose it, but may not be enough to enforce laws against it. There are also secular reasons to oppose Euthanasia. 2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia, than learn techniques for caring for the dying which undermines the quality of medicine availableThe American Medical Association, along with many other health organizations filed a brief with the Supreme Court during the Washington v. Glucksberg case, stating “properly trained health care professionals can effectively meet their patients’ needs for compassionate end-of-life care without acceding to requests for suicide” [7]. Dr. Hendin also shown “Studies show that the less physicians know about palliative care, the more they favor assisted suicide or euthanasia; the more they know, the less they favor it”, and “Euthanasia, intended originally for the exceptional case, became an accepted way of dealing with serious or terminal illness in the Netherlands. In the process, palliative care became one of the casualties, while hospice care has lagged behind that of other countries” 3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient and people cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted.. When it comes to normative ethics, there are two schools of thought utilitarianism, and Kantianism. Utilitarianism is “to act in the manner that determines the most positive consequences and the less negative ones” [8]. “The motive behind this pragmatic approach lies in the finding of a disproportionate growing trend of health expenses in the last month of the terminal patients’ life” [8]. This model of ethics makes it ethical to use euthanasia because it saves medical resources, and unethical to keep living and using those medical resources. This re-enforces the idea that legal Euthanasia actually limits choices and coerces people. Since, in this theory, the focus of moral evaluations is based on the consequences of the action towards others, it is impossible to know if you are doing a moral action. If because a patient chooses euthanasia to save medical resources, and now they are able to save a future mass murder from dying then they would have done an immoral action. This makes this theory a poor way to figure out if euthanasia is actually immoral or not. Further, in this moral theory there is no human rights since any action like murder could be moral if the majority benefited, so this isn’t a moral theory that people would want to follow. The other theory of Kantianism which gives a clearer answer. Kant believed we derive morality from rationality in which he proposed an unwavering moral law called the categorical imperitive [9]. Kant said to determine if an action is moral or not you would have to make that action a universal law that everyone must follow, and if that action caused any contradictions then it is an immoral action. “Kant would not agree with anybody who out of self-love decides to take his/her life. This is because this is a system that aims at destroying life; hence this maxim could not possibly exist as a universal law” [9]. This moral theory better explains if euthanasia is immoral or not, and better matches what the average person would believe, since in this theory we have human rights. 4. that it is un-ethical for doctors to give such procedures; such practices violate the Hippocratic Oath, and Voluntary euthanasia gives power which can be too easily abused The Hippocratic Oath was made to define the doctor’s proper role and medical ethics. Hippocrates states “the doctor to do whatever is for the benefit of the patient, and to give no deadly medicine if asked, nor suggest such counsel” [10]. To have legal euthanasia would violate centuries of well established and respected medical ethics. These medical ethics have been carried on by modern medical associations like General Medical Council, and British Medical Association [10]. Without this rule, doctors can abuse their role as a trusted professional. For example, “The government-sanctioned studies suggest an erosion of medical standards in the care of terminally ill patients in the Netherlands when … more than 50% of Dutch doctors feel free to suggest euthanasia to their patients, and 25% admit to ending patients' lives without their consent” [5]. Frankly, it is disturbing that any ending patients’ lives without consent is even accepted little alone so wide spread. Also, if doctors suggest euthanasia, they are essentially giving up at their position as trying to help/cure the patient. Sources[1] http://abcnews.go.com...[2] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[4] http://www.life.org.nz...[5] http://www.psychiatrictimes.com...[6] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[7] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[8] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[9] http://www.academia.edu...[10] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...

Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice Hopefully the judges will throw away any unbiased opinions toward this matter that they had previously. First off, I would like to define some terms. Euthanasia - the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering. There could perhaps be multiple definitions of euthanasia, such as voluntary euthanasia (EV), in which the physician kills the patient based on family recommendations. In other words, the patients themselves may not be in dire circumstance. The other one is "physician-assisted suicide" (PAS). Please note that we will solely be using the literal definition of euthanasia in this argument. While you can argue various aspects on the other ones, please refer to the main definition above to guide the debate. With that being said, I would first like to debunk a few things about euthanasia that are very erroneous. First off, many physicians and common people ignorantly refer to euthanasia as "easy death" or "mercy killing. " In all honesty, little ease or mercy truly arises from this procedure. In all actuality, proponents of euthanasia champion a form of assisted suicide, as a plethora of benefits exist from the termination of life. Physicians begin to naturally think of the benefits they would be accruing to perform this euthanasia, instead of being concerned with the actual patient. This where the Hippocratic Oath comes in to play. According to the [original] Hippocratic Oath (the medical "constitution" as deemed by many), a physician, by law, "Is to neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor to make a suggestion to its effect. " Though some of the original's tenets have transformed drastically, this one has remained true to Hippocrates and the physicians of old. As reported by Harvard graduate and University of Chicago Medical School professor, Leon Kass, "In foreswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can make killing him right. " In other words, physicians are entitled to uphold the utmost respect and reverence to the human body. A Hippocratic physician, which is what all physicians technically are, is not respecting the body by performing this procedure. By nature, ending a patient's life remains completely contradictory to a physician's practice and does not depend on circumstance. (One could render a similar argument against abortion too, but we are sticking to euthanasia here). Restraining from giving the patients lethal doses of poison does not reflect a doctor's views on autonomy or freedom for the suffering. It, however, does demonstrate the sacred devotion of medical practice and the arcane dignity that revolves around human life. Ancient Egyptian physicians, and doctors all throughout history, were thought to have a sacred role in life. Galen himself, the "medical rebel," realized his practice should be taken extremely seriously. Unfortunately, the advancement of euthanasia has also engendered a "slippery slope" effect to the legalization of murder. By definition, the euthanasia will not take place unless a patient orders a physician to perform it. This falls under both the voluntary euthanasia and PAS categories as discussed above. However, voluntary leads to involuntary euthanasia, via the lack of delineation between the two. Since euthanasia benefits the doctor's wage by performing the procedure and taking the patient " out of their misery," indirect becomes normal. If murdering one in this fashion yields such incredible comforts, why should a physician even ask for the consent of the patient/family? Essentially, euthanasia enables all physicians, even the unscrupulous, to determine the value of each patient's life and to have the power to thwart it on a whim, if given permission. According to logic standards, one can reasonably deduce that euthanasia no longer prohibits all forms of murder. Thus, its very base parallels that of unconstitutional and illegal activity, and therefore remains unethical and not sacred. However, let us not just think about the legal/moral side of this. Let us look to other aspects of the medical field that have been hurting because of this. Due to the wider prevalence of euthanasia, palliative (end-of-life) care opportunities have dwindled. The Netherlands, for example, demonstrates the disastrous effects that the legalization of euthanasia has caused in regards to palliative care. Wesley Smith, a prominent lawyer for bioethics, claims that a Dutch physician has asked: "Why should I worry about palliation when I have euthanasia? " In this way, the entire ethical background has shifted for medical purposes, as doctors view assisted suicide as a means to save their resources and time. Moreover, proponents for the legalization of "mercy killing" employ a philosophy that monetary gain and ease of labor are more important than human life. This, in turn, completely comprises the original purpose of medical practice, and now all physicians lose a sense of credibility. Plus, according to the Discovery Institute, very few young physicians seek specialties in palliative care due to the increased talk of euthanasia legalization. Therefore, hospice facilities have rapidly declined, and everyone has to suffer from this upcoming possibility. I don't think having hospice facilities decline all for the sake of legalizing euthanasia is worth it. Do you judges? 1) Kass, Leon, MD, PhD. Committee on Social Thought and for the College. University of Chicago. Public Interest, Winter of 1989. 2) Smith, Wesley J. , JD. "Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics. " Discovery Institute. 1997. 3) Various sources. "Euthanasia. " Pros and Cons of Euthanasia. Web. Jan. 7, 2014. . http://euthanasia.procon.org...

Euthanasia should be legal I think that Euthanasia should be legal for a couple of reasons. By the way by legalising euthanasia i mean legalising voluntary euthanasia 1. The patients are going to die soon( very painful deaths in some cases ) and they are suffering from a terminal illness which will cause them lots of pain until they die and there isn't a cure, so why live waiting to die a painful death when you can die straightaway with no pain at all. 2. People have the right to die and in some cases such as euthanasia people don't have the right to die because they need a doctor's help. It is still the patient's choice on whether to have euthanasia it is just that the patient need the doctor's help to kill him/her self. 3. Putting a person in pain that is incurable and watching them die a painful death is evil which is why euthanasia should be legal, euthanasia doesn't even hurt so why let a patient die a painful death when they want to do it by euthanasia and not by incurable pain.

Physician assisted suicide should be legal nationwide. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is a controversial practice in which a doctor ends the life of the patient at his or her request. In the United States, PAS is currently legal in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and New Mexico [1]. Oregon was the first state to legalize PAS following the enactment of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act on October 27, 1997 [2]. The other four states, Washington, Montana, Vermont, and New Mexico followed suit with the passage of I-1000 in 2008, the expansion of the Rights for the Terminally Ill Act in 2009, enactment of the Patient Choice and Control at End of Life Act in 2013, and a 2nd District Court ruling [3]. Contention 1: PAS does not disproportionally affect vulnerable groups. Although a frequently cited British study declares that PAS violates the rights of vulnerable individuals, this study declared competing interests, as two of the authors "gave oral evidence to the Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill on behalf of the Association for Palliative Medicine" and one being a member of that committee [4]. As a result, this study fails to stand in comparison with the various other non-biased studies that show equality in the application of PAS. Looking at data from Oregon, it is evident that PAS does not affect groups that are considered vulnerable at a higher rate than those that are not considered vulnerable. An analysis of 8 years of data from the Oregon Department of Health showed the following [5]: Individuals who were over 85 made up only 10% of PAS deaths, whereas 21% of the total deaths in Oregon were of those 85 and older. Only 2% of PAS deaths were of individuals with AIDS. Individuals who died by PAS were 7.6 times more likely to have a college degree. No patients who received life-ending medication were found to have a mental illness. Contention 2: Adequate screening for mental illness prevents the misuse of PAS.Terminally ill individuals are often concerned about leaving behind family members and may become anxious and depressed. While there have been studies analyzing the rates of depression in those who requested or received aid in dying, these studies have methodological problems, as targeting the desire for death in a PAS-specific manner invokes social and legal constraints [6]. For this reason, research that focuses on PAS in relation to depression rates are unreliable. As a result, scholars encourage those interested in the demographics of those receiving PAS to look into the desire for death as a whole in terminally ill patients [6]. There have been numerous studies conducted with the aim of gauging the prevalence of depression in individuals with terminal illness. For 25% of those with metastatic cancers depression is a major symptom, however "80% of the psychological and psychiatric morbidity which develops in cancer patients goes unrecognized and untreated" [7]. Thus, the key to improving the quality of life with those terminal illnesses is the training of healthcare professional in the identification of depression and providing appropriate treatment. By addressing clinical depression, the likelihood of PAS being abused is greatly decreased. Contention 3: PAS remains rare even in states where it is legal. In 2001, deaths by PAS made up 7 out of every 10,000 deaths in Oregon, which decreased since 1999 even though the number of prescriptions for life-terminating medications increased [8]. Washington state saw a similar occurrence, when in the three years since the passage of I-1000, 255 prescriptions had been written for life-ending medications but only 60% of patients chose to use them [9]. The legalization of PAS has not led to a noticeable increase in the number of patients taking life-terminating medications, dispelling the myth that terminally ill patients rushed to end their lives. [1] http://mobile.nytimes.com...[2] https://public.health.oregon.gov...[3] http://healthcare.findlaw.com...[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[6] http://jama.jamanetwork.com...[7] http://pmj.bmj.com...[8] http://www.nejm.org...[9] http://health.usnews.com...

Euthansia Should Be Legalised Euthanasia: The practice of intentionally ending a life for the purposes of relieving suffering. This differs from Mercy Killing, which is done at times without the consent of the person who is to die. I"m arguing from the standpoint of Euthanasia, in which the patient/person who is going to die is aware of and consents to their treatment. Reasons for this belief: I am arguing that the practice of killing someone with their knowledge and consent should be legal. It is in my opinion that if someone is in enough pain that they request to be put out of it, then it should be legal for them to seek and receive that painless end. If this practice was legal, I believe that there should be restrictions. It would not be a requirement in all cases of extreme suffering, nor would it be acceptable to allow someone who is mentally unable to decide what treatment is beneficial to them to make the decision to end their own suffering. An example of when this would be an acceptable option would be when a given patient was going to die, without question, but would be waiting for weeks or months to end their suffering in a natural , painful way. In such a case, I believe that it is not only a good option to give, but that it is more ethical to allow them the choice to die than to force them to live out their life"s end in pain and suffering.

Resolve that Euthanasia should be legalized If a person is terminally ill and they only have 6 months to live, would you make them suffer through the pain for that whole time or with their wish would you allow them the right to end that pain? God may be in charge of all life, but what if that person knows it's their time to die? Also, say a family member is terminally ill and your really close to them. Why in the world would you want to see them in that horrible, horrific state of pain for however long they have to live? If that person wishes to end their life, shouldn't you grant them that wish, being that their in an unbearable state of pain? Thirdly, the doctors do not have to agree to assisted euthanasia of any one person. If the doctor is willing to do it, then the pain after the person is gone should not be that big. If doctors are not forced to do it then the willing ones should be ok with it

Legalizing euthanasia places an unreasonable burden on doctors The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes against all they stand for. Many doctors that have performed euthanasia are traumatized or deeply, negatively affected by the experience.

Euthanasia should be legalized I will start by addressing Con's main argument, being that it is the government's right to protect citizens from all danger including themselves. Any situation that would force a person to consider euthanasia (extreme physical or mental suffering) as their only viable option would already be defined as a danger to the citizen in question, both to their mental health and well-being. Euthanasia in this case is not a danger to the person, but rather the only means of release from an otherwise inescapable situation. So by Con's argument the government would be require to provide euthanasia as an option to these people to protect them from the danger that they are facing. Also those that require therapy after attempted suicide are most often people suffering from some mental problem, example; depression. As I stated in my model, those seeking euthanasia would be subjected to professional psychological tests to determine that the patient is in a fit state to make the decision for euthanasia. I'll move on to my main point, which is that it is the right of the individual, not the government, to decide how and when one should die. Already the government accepts our right to slowly kill ourselves by smoking and drinking. This is because the government understands that the we have the right to live our lives in any manner we choose, so long as it does not impact on the lives of others. The logical next step is to allow citizens to decide the time and the manner of their death. The people requesting euthanasia would take psychological tests to determine they are in a fit state of metal health and family opinions would be observed. We allow people to live their lives as they want so why shouldn't we allow them to die when they wish? There is no reason.

Euthanasia should be legalized Thank you, Con, for posting this and I look forward to having my first debate on DDO with you.Clarifications:1. For scope, "legalized euthanasia" (henceforth PAS for physician-assisted suicide) should be defined in this debate. Since, as Pro, I will be defending it (and, since Con has not made any particular definition in round one) I find no harm in laying down specifics."Euthanasia (noun): the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma" [1] Pro will defend the verbal/written consent by the patient and written authorization of mental stability by an outside professional for the former, and prior written consent by the patient for the latter."Legalize (transitive verb): to make legal; to give legal validity or sanction to" [2] The only purpose in this definition is to make clear the physician never has the say in euthanizing patients. The decision will rest solely on the patient.2. So as not to make the focus of the debate about semantics, it's probably a good idea to define the "value" of human life."Values (noun): principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what's important in life" [3] As Pro, I will defend an individually based utilitarian approach on "values" (i.e. maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering). If Con disagrees with this, I think it's fair game to debate how the "value of life" should be interpreted and its consequential ethics.3. Both Pro and Con should share BoP when making positive claims. Pro should defend the benefits of legal PAS and Con should support claims otherwise. Without any reason to negate the resolution, the decision should default Pro.4. Sources should be cited when giving data or an empiric (or copy-pasting text from a cite [4]). Personally, credit should be given where credit is due.5. Any necessary clarifications between Pro and Con can be done in the comments, but the debate should remain in-round.All things considered, I'll continue with the debate.. . . . .As Pro, I will argue only one contention needs to be won to win this debate, or sufficiently negate Con's counter-arguments.Contention 1: The Value of LifeThe values of life, and those contained within life, should be the exclusive right of the person interpreting those values. The formulation of this is based on the following theorem:1. All that can be known exists in the physical world.2. Humans exist in the physical world.3. Humans are conscious beings.4. Conscious beings, ipso facto, create values.5. Genetic predispositions and experiences of conscious beings form values.6. No human beings observe the world simultaneously through experience.7. Therefore, humans create unique values separate from all others.Values are constructs of the human conscience and can only be based off of genetic predisposition and/or experiences. The latter is the focus, since predisposed values, such as procreation and good will, are exclusively left to the realm of evolution. Since it is safe to assume each individual human being has a unique set of observations throughout life, a person should have the ability to determine values of the self. The definition listed above supports this as values are defined as "one's judgement of what's important in life." This leads into the second argument:1. Life has value, if and only if, it functions as a medium for experience.2. Life allows for observations and experience.3. Therefore, life has value.If a person is able to have the ability to gauge importance and observe the advantages/disadvantages to life (as a value), they should, when terminally ill, be given the right to choose between a peaceful end and suffering. From an individualistic utilitarian standpoint, a person is within reason to choose PAS when they have an excruciating terminal illness, as it avoids the inevitable pain in those last few moments of life.Contention 2: The Right to Life and DeathIn America, citizens have the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as shown by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. [5] These rights are supported by the Government, "deriving their powers from the consent of the governed." If Pro can prove the right to life necessitates the right to death, the government is obligated to support PAS as they are fulfilling their duty to serve the people.1. People have a right to life.2. A world beyond life cannot be known.3. If a world beyond life cannot be known, death is the end to values.4. Terminal illness guarantees death.4. Therefore, people have a right to death, if and only if, they are terminally ill.This provides the parameters for how people should view life in relation to death. Since all we know and all we can observe/experience exists in the physical world, values (a construct thereof) should only be taken as an extension of physical property. Life is something a person owns at his/her own will, not as an obligation. Once it is medically established beyond reason a patient will die from an illness, values may be taken into perspective, since they know their clock is, essentially, running out.Contention 3: MercyIt is well established a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment according to the U.S. Constitution's fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court consistently defends the right to life and liberty would be violated if a hospital forced treatment for their patient. [6] This catch-22 leaves the doctor in a lose-lose scenario. Either, the doctor abridges the patient's constitutional rights, or s/he carries the burden of knowing an alternate solution would have produced less suffering. A common retort is the fallacious argument that PAS is murder. The false assumption is that it is the doctor's decision to assist in the process. Since, it is exclusively the patient's decision, the doctor is absolved of all responsibility. Evaluating a paradigm of values, the doctor would actually be doing the wrong thing by barring PAS as an option, since this would lead to more suffering.. . . . .Rebuttal:"Euthanasia devalues human life"1. Con has the BoP to show how a patient ending their own suffering devalues their life (which, my first contention refutes).2. Arbitrarily deciding life itself has more worth than the values a patient follows, necessarily devalues that patients life.3. A patient who believes their life will be devalued during/after PAS is free to not choose that route."Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment"1. It is Con's BoP to show how it will be used as such when the decision rides solely on the patient."Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death"1. Con should defend why PAS is worse than patient refusal of treatment to speed up the process.2. This point was covered in contentions two and three."There is a 'slippery slope' effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only the terminally ill and later the laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily."1. Empirical slippery slopes are difficult to defend because they assume same-case scenarios. Con's empiric cites no such data. BoP has not been met.2. Even if there are empirical examples, to say one good law shouldn't be passed because another law might be passed without proving why is an argumentum ad ignorantiam at best.3. Contention one indicates the value of individual life should outweigh this measure.Back to you, Con :)[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[4] http://www.euthanasia.com...[5] http://www.archives.gov...[6] http://law2.umkc.edu...[7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Euthanasia should be legal If a person really wants to leave this earth, no matter why, he or she will always find a way. Some attempt suicide and others travel to another country for receiving euthanasia. If the person attempts suicide it could happen in a forest or in the person"s apartment, and at one time someone finds the person. This person who finds the maybe now dead person gets a terrible memory for life. No one wants to find a dead or unconscious person. In fact lesser people attempt suicide when euthanasia is legalized. Isn"t this a good thing? When fewer attempt suicide, fewer find dead persons who had committed suicide and fewer get a painful death. So if you only have the choice between letting a person attempt suicide or receive euthanasia what would you choose?

Euthanasia Should Be Legal. 1. Third Party Influence: My opponent agrees that no law can be crafted on such a delicate issue which will rule out corruption in the Ethanasia system. Also, my opponent does not present a way for a system to have transparency built in to allow reviews of the decision's toward euthanasia. It is very important to understand that Third Party Influence has the potential to corrupt the Euthanasia system. No law can be crafted which can ensure this does not occur or to allow prosecution in the future since transparency does not exist. My opponent argues that he believes a case in which a Third Party (Family, freinds, or outsiders) has an agenda and pressures the patient into assisted suicide is "rare". This is true but that is because only 6 places in the ENTIRE world allow euthanasia. Now extending the legality of euthanasia to all of the USA, the third largest country in the world, you can imagine that cases of corrupt behavior by a third party will rise as the number of euthanasia procedures rise. Since my opponent agrees that corrupt behavior does exists he must understand that by extending the power of euthanasia to 350,000,000 people corrupt behavior will increase. My opponent's argument: "Mind you, for most if not all voluntary euthanasia procedures, this patient is under unbearable pain and/or is terminally ill. So it's not like family members (really corrupt ones at that) can try to find any excuse to persuade their relative to pull the plug; the patient would have to meet the requirements medically speaking. This requirement by itself limits the possibility of family members trying to profit from someone's death." As the law is written in Oregon, "Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life." (Wikipedia.com) So my opponents argument that the patient is on a deathbed in excruciating pain pleading for their life to end is only half the story. Patients can ask for euthanasia as soon as they are diagnosed with a terminal illness and they have less than six months to live. My opponent assumes that they will wait until they are in severe pain and almost dead to ask for euthanasia when in fact they can choose euthanasia before disease has the chance to consume their body. Hence the name of the law in Oregon - "Death with dignity act". Meaning a person can avoid putting his or her family through the pain of seeing them in severe pain and drifting in and out of consciousness and ending their life weeks or months before this occurs. So their family is not exposed to such trauma. This being true makes his argument that corruption by a third party is limited since the patient must meet medical standards and be in severe pain false. Since the only requirement the current law in Oregon requires the patient to have a terminal illness that will kill them within 6 months. This leaves a large enough window for Third Party corruption. This being true euthanasia should not be legalised. 2. Corruption in the Euthanasia System Opponents Agrument: "A doctor can't get paid by some shady character and kill the patient; there has to be written consensus on the patient's part." The scenario i presented in round is this: Under the model that doctors must not be paid for euthanasia but offer them for free to rule out corrupt behavior in the euthanasia system would not work. Doctors would have more incentive to authorize and conduct fraudulent euthanasia procedures since they would be paid "under the table" for them. My opponent argument fails for 2 reasons. First, my opponent again insists that "written consent on the patients part" rules out corrupt behavior. As i have clearly explained, patient consent does not rule out corruption. If a patient is pressured by a third into assisted suicide his "written consent" is merely a lie for he or she truly does not want to undergo euthanasia. Second, my opponent's depiction of "some shady character" paying a doctor to "kill the patient" is exaggerated. Under the model of free euthanasia procedures, a Third Party (family or friends of the patient, hardly "shady") can approach the doctor and pay him money to fraudulently authorize and conduct an euthanasia procedure. If the doctor is not getting paid to conduct and authorize legal euthanasia he has more incentive to conduct and authorize a fraudulent euthanasia for money. The argument that offering euthanasia for free will uproot corruption again is false. Not only will doctors be more susceptible to corruption but consumers of euthanasia procedures will increase. So more people will choose euthanasia as a viable option since it is free, there is no barrier to curb the use of euthanasia, instead this will increase the number of procedures performed. As i stated earlier, with the increase of euthanasia procedures, the probability that corrupt behavior will occur also increases. Conclusion: Euthanasia is a very tough issue. It offers families in dire situations to help end the suffering of loved ones. Many can agree that it seems humane and right to allow Euthanasia to speed up the process of death in such a scenario. However as the law in Oregon shows, a person can choose Euthanasia month or weeks before they are reduced to such a state. The dangers that are clearly eminent by corruption can not be purged from any Euthanasia system. Legislatures can not craft a law perfect enough to rule out corruption and greed. Nor, can they craft a law allowing transparency into the decision of the terminally ill for later review into corrupt or fraudulent behavior since the terminally ill has deceased. Allowing 350,000,000 the right to assisted suicide is dangerous since we can not control corrupt behavior. It should noted Patients are allowed to refuse medical treatment even if it speeds up the process of their death. In this situation the patient in in complete control, no second party is conducting procedures that actively kill the patient. Also people should understand that Euthanasia is not a perfect science: "In an earlier 2000 study of 649 patients undergoing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, 14% of patients undergoing euthanasia had complications such as waking from the coma, spasms or vomiting.[2] Thirty-two percent of patients undergoing physician-assisted suicide had complications which were troublesome enough in 18% to require their doctors to switch to active euthanasia. In this study physicians were absent in 28% of cases of euthanasia and 48% of cases of physician-assisted suicide." http://en.wikipedia.org... These stats are from the Netherlands where Euthanasia is legal. The Netherlands only represents %5 of the USA population. For these reasons Euthanasia should not be legalized.

Euthanasia should not be legalized. My argument is simple. The legalization of euthanasia will not set the dying free, but set the selfish free of the dying. The obligation one has to care for a dying and/or suffering family member is a moral and spiritual duty bound in self sacrifice. It requires strength in the face of sorrow, vigilance, patience, thoughtfulness and compassion. These are all selfless traits in a world which has increasingly become more selfish. Once euthanasia becomes legalized (as it is soon to be here in Canada) the dying who cannot communicate their wishes will have only the moral consciences of their kin to protect them, and not the laws of the state. Are we, as a society, prepared to wager that our citizens will always have sincere and compassionate intentions in their hearts when they are ready to "pull the plug"? While I sympathize with those who wish to end their own suffering on their own terms, the change in this law will lead to many instances of what is essentially legalized murder; the dispensing of a person whose existence has placed a burden on another's life. In closing, I believe that the legalization of euthanasia will feed the abscess of selfishness, and offer freedom not to the dying, but to those who can not wait to be rid of them.

Euthanasia should be legalised Firstly, pro argues that you have the right to stop living if you so desire. However, this stands in direct contridiction of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Washington V. Glucksberg where the majority opinion read "The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause." Therefore under American Law there is absolutely no right to die. Pro also argues that they would only have the option and not be forced to administer it. Perhaps this is true, but any doctor who administers it violates the medical profession. They go against the body that forms the policy for medical treatment as well as the Hippocratic oath which states "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;" The job of the doctor and physician is to preserve and give comfort to human life, never to end it.

legalize euthanasia P1- Euthanasia may be considered a better option or alternative for people who do not want to suffer from pain anymore. When people are in excrutiating pain, they make irrational decisions and one of those are suicide. They take matters into their own hands and wind up harming themselves in the process. Why should we allow people who are already in pain to experience more by killing themelves when we can present them this option which would be less painful? P2- Patients who are kept alive with no chance of getting better are using valuable resources such as medicine and hospital supplies. If the individual no longer wants to be held in the hospital for who knows how long, they should be able to give up their right to live. If it will benefit somebody else who is terribly ill, who has a chance of survival, we should respect the terminally ill person's wished to benefit the next person. P3- By the indiviudual wanting to end their lives, they are not harming anybody. If anybody will suffer from the procedure, it will be them. They should be able to make that choice. C; Euthanasia should be legalized.

Euthanasia should be Illegal Euthanasia should be legal. I am in no way supporting the idea of committing suicide when you have a future to strive for. I agree with Pro that Euthanasia is indeed a way to die by your own means. However, what right does the government have to say that we aren't allowed to have control over our own lives? I thought one's rights ended where another's began? When did it become illegal to die? What, are they going to arrest your dead body? Responding to the 5 reasons shown by Pro, I hope to show why Euthanasia should be legal. 1. Yes Euthanasia does mean Dignified Death or Good, however the term Murder is not one of the definitions for it. I would like to question Pro on the fact of "Therefore any form of killing, regardless of motives, is not permissible." Firstly I would like to say, the Bible actually does have circumstances where killing would be justified. Such as when someone breaks into your home and threatens your family. "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him." Exodus 22:2. This shows that indeed Killing, in self defense is permissible. As for the suicide aspect of it, suicide is indeed something we would not accept, however that is assuming the person still has a pursuit of happiness. It is our right to pursue happiness no matter the cost (Of course, our rights end where another's begin.) What if someone cannot be happy due to a constant pain that they cannot escape no matter the pills or medications they take? What if they are under this pain and now it is a terminal illness and they cannot escape? Do they not have the right to pursue relief? Also remember that we have to take this from every perspective, and from the position of someone who might not be religious they would not see Euthanasia as something immoral. 2. As stated a fear of Euthanasia is the power of the Doctor, however they are oathbound to not cause harm to the patients, so how can they perform Euthanasia? Simple, there is two forms of Euthanasia as Pro has mentioned: Active and Passive. Active Euthanasia would require a Doctor too give a person who is in of the right mind and is 100% voluntary to the decision, so that they can die a painless death. Passive Euthanasia would not give any power to the Doctor, infact it would give the Patient the ability to refuse all treatment even if it would cause them to die. The Doctor would have no say in the patients decision, if the patient is of logical and clear thinking they can pursue a relief of pain if they so desire. Of course under the circumstance of Passive Euthanasia this would not break a single right, nor would it give power to others. 3. I understand that the Law can change our way of thought, and our morals. This is the very reason for this debate is to attempt to change the moral and lawful view of this subject. Would it be wrong for Euthanasia to be accepted Legally? As you stated, if it was accepted, by no means would it be immoral, since we see the law as "right". So as to whether Euthanasia is immoral or not would depend on the person's perspective on the law and their morals. 4. Remember, suicide is already a choice people can make, and people make it all the time. If someone was sick and wanted relief, they would not be "pressured" by Euthanasia but aware of its presence, and would question if they should to do so. Pressure and Awareness are too different things entirely. If someone knew of Euthanasia being available to them and were sick and didnt want to be in pain, then they have every right to choose Euthanasia. They would not be pressured to do so, they would know they can end their pain. Remember, there are people who are terminally ill and in constant pain, if they want to choose Euthanasia then should be allowed their dignified death. If they do not want Euthanasia then they can push on. Euthanasia gives a choice to the patient, rather than saying they just have to wait for that moment they will finally die even though they dont have long already, and each second it pain. You may think there is no such people, however as a Primary Source, my own Mother was a hospice nurse. She knew of people who would pass on peacfully and others who were screaming and yelling "MY FEET ARE BURNING! HELP! PLEASE HELP! STOP THE PAIN!!" These were patients already prescribed and medicated with things such as Morphine and other pain killers. However Pain Killers do not always do the trick, and for those suffering each second waiting for their time to finally die, Euthanasia would be a much more humane thing to do. Pro had stated that Euthanasia would pressure people to end their lives if it was legal, and stated that most countries do not allow this. However Pro herself states here that Most countries do not allow this, but SOME do! In fact quiet a few of very well known countries such as: the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Colombia and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Albania, Canada, and in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Montana and California. Knowing this, it is already legal in multiple parts of the US for Euthanasia, meaning that this "pressure" would already be in affect. 5. I would like to state something very obvious here: Of course NO ONE wants to die! What they want is relief! If we could give people that, then Euthanasia wouldn't have been invented, however base line is we cannot! In the Past, Honor was a highly regarded thing, and even today people do not want to tarnish their Pride. No one wants others to slowly watch them suffer in pain, no one wants others to see your weakness. Euthanasia is just like you described it, an honorable death. A way that we can relieve others of their pain and respect their pride. Allow them to die with a smile on their face. Remember just because Euthanasia exist, doesnt mean every single patient has to take it! You think that people won't want to prolong their lives to the farthest they can handle? Euthanasia is only there so that when the person finally says "I give, it hurts to much, I am ready to die." We can give them that death instead of making them suffer for even longer. Bottom Line: Euthanasia is NOT murder. Murder by definition is: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." So firstly, if Euthanasia was legal, like it is in some parts of the U.S then it would not be murder since it is legal! Second, It would not be a human killing another human, it is one human deciding to call it quits and find some peace. It's not like anyone is saying to force the elderly to commit senpuku xD If they want a quick, painless death and are tired, then we should give it to them. If you are going off a religious thought, then you should know that Euthanasia is not murder, nor is it killing somebody. Also Passive Euthanasia is not suicide, it is refusing others from filling you with medications and tubes that will prolong your painful life, aka not wanting to be tortured,

Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal In your response, you cite the Hippocratic Oath as a reason why physician-assisted suicide should stay illegal and claim that all medicine in this country is practiced by it. Would this be the same Hippocratic Oath that also says a physician must treat the person who taught him medicine as a parent, as well as teach others this "art' for free? If doctors are really bound by the Hippocratic Oath, then every doctor who takes any pay from a medical school that charges students to attend there would be violating the oath. Later on in the oath, it says that doctors will "not use the knife". So I guess surgeons are violating the oath as well. And the part that everyone does know, the "first, do no harm" (and apparently the only part you are aware of), it says "I will keep them from harm and injustice". Since the rest of the oath has been subjectively revised so as to keep up with the times, I can and will easily say that keeping patients from harm includes keeping them from needless pain and suffering. In addition, keeping patients from injustice can and should also mean keeping other people's values and morals off of an individual's or a family's personal and private decision. The fact of the matter is that the Hippocratic oath has been amended significantly, and is often not even used. In the 1970's, many schools abandoned the oath because of its archaic principles. My guess is that many medical schools dropped it because of its call to teach medicine for free and only to men. Other schools use some other versions of the Hippocratic Oath, or other oaths developed by other doctors or medical associations. In short, claiming that the Hippocratic Oath is universally accepted, universally used and universally adhered to is simply false. I never claimed that morality has no place in medicine, just not a morality that is being imposed by people outside of the doctor/patient/family relationship. Go back and read what I wrote in round 1. I said "I believe it to be the height of arrogance that someone can feel as though they can enforce THEIR morality on someone suffering from a terminal disease". Unless you are the person dying, or a family member of yours is the one dying, you should have no say in what decision they make. A physician should use his own moral code to direct his actions regarding euthanasia, but many doctors feel that such a practice should be allowed, especially when they are forced to watch a person waste away from a terminal disease. If a doctor has a problem with it, he or she can refuse to perform the procedure, the same as any doctor with performing an abortion. The issues surrounding guidelines and legal standards are the strongest parts of your argument. Even so, it doesn't seem to bother people in Oregon. They don't seem to have any trouble figuring it out. While I could use Oregon as an example and leave it at that, I will instead try to give common sense answers to your questions. If we went by the "Kevorkian method", as you call it, that doesn't seem to be such a bad thing. By Kevorkian's account from last night, he only assisted 1 in 5 that came to him for help because the others did not fit a medical need. That's a lot of discretion for someone you seem to feel is blood thirsty. If there would be any guidelines used, perhaps the guidelines that doctors follow when they determine that someone does not stand to gain from any further medical intervention and recommend hospice care. That seems common sense enough to me. In addition, most people have seen so many doctors by the time they reach this point that the requirement to get a second opinion would have been reached long ago. There should be no need for a psychologist if a person has been determined to be terminal and he wishes to end his life on his own terms. To require a psychological workup would be an unnecessary governmental intrusion, much like what we have to deal with now. The concerns of the family are taken into account by the patient himself. But this is one of the points of allowing euthanasia: to help keep patients from getting to the point where they can't make their own decisions. If they are incapacitated, then living wills and advanced directives override family desires anyway. For example, if a patient has ordered that they are DNR, or Do Not Resuscitate, the directive overrides the family in the event of a medical emergency. If there are no directives or living wills, then the family should be able to make the decision after consulting with the doctors in charge of their loved one's care, just as they do now. In fact, making euthanasia legal would make episodes like Terry Schaivo much better for everyone involved because they would have access to physicians who would be able to end her life much more humanely than simply pulling her feeding tube. She didn't have to die like that. It was conservatives and their use of the government to impose the laws that we have that starved her to death. If someone is determined to be terminal by at least two doctors, then if euthanasia were legal, their terminal status should invalidate the no-suicide clause. In my view, and in a view that I feel would hold up legally, physician-assisted suicide should be no different than when someone desires to be listed as DNR. The doctors and nurses could prolong a patient's life by intervening in a medical crisis, but their choice to be DNR hastened their death from the crisis, much the same as assisted-suicide. As I know from personal experience, insurance companies and pensions still pay out when a family member dies while being listed as DNR. These are doctors we're talking about, not lawyers. I'm not sure how many "shysters" are out there running around, but I'm sure there aren't that many. The procedure would not take a lot of time for the doctor, nor would it take much in the way of equipment or drugs. So in relation to other procedures that the doctor could be spending his time on, assisting someone to commit suicide would probably not be very lucrative for the doctor. If there are a lot of shysters running around trying to milk money out of desperate people, then I think we have a much larger problem in our medical system that needs to be addressed ASAP. I actually didn't get to see him speak last night. I couldn't get a ticket to go and was left to read about it this morning in the paper. But I have supported this position for a long time now. I supported it before Terry Schaivo and before my dad very nearly avoided a situation much like hers. If my family had faced the same kind of intrusive intervention that Michael Schaivo faced, I would be a lot more militant about it than I am now. Fortunately for me, though, I don't have to go through the same thing he did to empathize.

Legalize Euthanasia I see where Pro is coming from - she makes some valid points but ultimately they are too utopian. Note that I am not debating the intrinsic morality of euthanasia; what I will be arguing is that it should not be legalised because doing so would negatively impact society and the people within it. My first argument against euthanasia is that death, and the choice to end one's life, is arguably the most significant decision that one can ever make. There is no changing of your mind when you decide to end your life - the consequences are eternal. Considering this fact, we can see that euthanasia is simply too serious a decision to allow people to make. A 2001 study by Dr Robert Fine observed that many people with terminal illnesses suffer from 'depression, anxiety, and delirium'. (1) In the context of the law, mentally ill people are deemed, to differing degrees, 'mentally incompetent'. This is to say that they require a guardian to govern their personal affairs (implying that mentally people cannot make informed and sensible decisions concerning their personal affairs)(2). Therefore, as many terminally ill patients have poor mental health, if they request euthanasia then we would be naive to suppose that their decision was sensibly made, free from manipulation or fully-informed. Therefore, euthanasia should not be legalised. My second argument is that the widespread use of euthanasia (as demonstrated by the rising euthanasia statistics in countries such as the Netherlands(3)) will mean that it will ultimately become the 'default' way to die. The process, to put it bluntly, would be something along the lines of: 1. Person Q is diagnosed with a terminal illness X 2. Person Q observes that many people who suffer from X request euthanasia 3. Person Q, because it is the social norm, decides to request euthanasia 4. Person Q dies. The problem with this progression of events is that it sabotages the field of medical research. The primary reason that medical research exists is to find cures for diseases. If it becomes the norm that people request euthanasia upon discovering that they have a deadly disease, then there is no motivation for scientists/physicians to develop new cures and medicines because patients will become less eager to be cured. Why is this? Because the point of a cure is to prevent death. If people are asking for death when suffering from a particular disease, what is the point in finding a cure when many people are content to do without? To summarise, euthanasia should not be legalised because it removes the motivation for medical research and related scientific-development. My final argument is that it is far too idealistic to insist that people will make an uninfluenced and wholly autonomous decision. Elderly people especially are very susceptible to manipulation and persuasion. (4) Therefore, it would be extremely easy for a greedy heir to persuade their parent(s) that euthanasia is the right thing to do. This is clearly a negative thing as it is essentially manipulating people to commit suicide for society's convenience. Moreover, many old people have a form of 'martyr complex' where they do not want to be a burden on their family, friends and society in general. If euthanasia becomes legal, it becomes an acceptable option. If this option presents itself then there is no excuse for the elderly to not alleviate the burden that they pose. It is no stretch of the imagination to envision scenarios where the elderly are considered selfish for clinging onto life and draining resources. Over to you Pro :) (1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (2) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... (4) Kantor, Martin (2006). The Psychopathology of Everyday Life: how to deal with manipulative people.

Euthanasia I would also like to establish what I mean by euthanasia, the assisted suicide of people through medical and humane conditions when the person is of a sound state of mind. Now, lets begin: I would like to start with Dr. Jack Kevorkian. For those who are unfamiliar with him, he was a medical specialist who was known for assisting people in suicide throughout the 60's. He brought questions of medical ethics during the 1900's and also today. His procedure was such: When the patient was of a sound state of mind and accompanied by a witness, they would come to his place of business and the first time they would just talk about what they are wanting to do. The second visit the same thing occurred. On the third visit Dr. Kevorkian would ask them again then administer a numbing concern. When the Doctor was taken to court and placed in jail, I found it to be unlawful. This brings us to the stasis of the debate; Do we, as people, get to control our lives? I say yes and here's why: 1) The government is there to protect us, it is for us and because of us. But, when we no longer want to live, be it pain or other medical stipulation, who, other than ourselves, has the right to force us to live when we would rather die? No one. 2) If the person is of a sound state of mind, as determined by a specialist, then they are fully aware of what they are choosing to do. .. This is what they want. 3) We already have policies such as DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) . By allowing for legal, medical, and human euthanasia we are give the right to live or not to live to the people. As the Deceleration of Independence states, "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", it does not end there, with the right to life comes the right to death.

Legalize Euthanasia In regards to the idea that every individual holds different beliefs and perspectives on ethical issues, such as the one we will debate now, I believe that human euthanasia should be legalized for the pure fact that any individual, that is suffering from a disease/illness that is terminal, should be able to choose how they will go about dealing with their situation. Euthanasia should not be permitted to any random person that decides arbitrarily to walk into a clinic and ask to be euthanized, but instead should be offered (restrictively) to persons suffering from terminal illness. Instead of forcing someone to suffer through the pain (for what might be a couple years) before they naturally die, someone should be able to decide on when they want to stop the pain. People would be able to talk it out with families, plan a date for the procedure, and decide on their own when the right time to pass peacefully is. In contrast, other people who are against euthanasia will still be able to decline that option- because legalizing euthanasia doesn't imply that one MUST choose to use the procedure.

Should we allow euthanasia Such an emotionally charged topic is sure to inspire feelings of disgust and fear in some of the audience. However, we must be brave and consider the position we're debating clearly and in an organized manner if we wish to discover truth. Human beings have the right to their own person as their body is considered a property right under the fourth amendment. Even the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, "There is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person." However, let us be exquisitely clear. We are not discussing euthanasia in the privacy of one's own home. We're discussing patients which means the hospital is the custodian and has a legal duty of care to the patient. Chapter 5.8 in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics, it clearly states: "Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician"s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. Euthanasia could readily be extended to incompetent patients and other vulnerable populations." This is important from an ethical point of view but also a legal point of view. If euthanasia was allowed, it's not entirely clear how regulation could be reliably maintained. I present evidence of this in the form of an excerpt from the research article entitled "Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide". "For example, about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported. Increased tolerance of transgressions in societies with such laws represents a social "slippery slope," as do changes to the laws and criteria that followed legalization. " Also, physicians have a clear duty of care to their patients and harming them is inconsistent with the legal obligation and oath they swore. Therefore, it is not only ethically right but also legally right to forbid physicians to engage in such harmful practices. Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ama-assn.org... https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...

Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly Euthanasia may be considered assisted suicide from a medical point of view, but I have to disagree about it being inhumane - it actually seems like one of the most humane ways to end a person's life. Instead of years of physical and mental suffering, people can go out painlessly, on their own terms. Why does that seem inhumane? To your second point, yes, there are other ways to relieve a person's pain and suffering. Medically prescribed drugs can certainly help in some cases, but our medical advancements have only brought us so far. Doctors cannot guarantee that a patient diagnosed with cancer will be cured, or that someone with Lou Gehrig's Disease will recover from slow, total-body paralysis. In the cases where medical advancement is no longer helpful, if euthanasia was legal, these patients could choose not to suffer a slow and painful death, but rather a quick, painless one. And the answers to your questions: 1. Euthanasia is never the only option, but as I mentioned in my opening comments, the right to death is as much given to us in the United States Constitution as the right to life, and should at least be a legal option. 2. In all cases, Euthanasia is a last resort. 3. I am not sure what population of people openly support euthanasia.

Right to choose Our legal system accepts that people have a legal right to choose when to die, as demonstrated by the fact that suicide is legal. This right is denied to those who are incapable of taking their own lives unaided. Legalising euthanasia would redress this balance. Our legal system also recognises that assisting a suicide attempt is a crime. Human beings are independent biological entities, and as an adult, have the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves. A human being decides who they spend their life with, their career path, where they live, whether to bear children. So what is the harm in allowing a terminally ill patient to decide for themselves whether they die in a hospital or in their own home? Surely a terminally ill sufferer is better qualified to decide for themselves whether they are better off dead or alive? Their disease makes them so crippled they cannot commit suicide alone. A quote from The Independent in March 2002 stated that “So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions” [[ The Independent" Editiorial Make euthansia available for those who can choose it http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/make-euthanasia-available-for-those-who-can-choose-it-653034.html Accessed 03.09]]. Human beings should be as free as possible and unnecessary restraints on human rights are strongly discouraged. The opposition makes an arguement of inclination. However, it ought to be rejected that people, intuitions or legal entities should advocate the death of an individual. The life an individual rests in the considerations of the consequences of an individual's actions. If we deny them this right, we make a claim that we own their life. We own the product of their time, energy and utility. This is something we must never fall into. Although it may be said from a financial sense, things aren't good; we do attempt to put human life in an invaluable scale. It may be said that human beings are precious for various reasons, but the value of an individual's life can never be determined by the state, another individual or entity. Even though life insurances are in place, the individual's self-assigned worth is what gives the individual its own worth for its very own existence.

It relieves suffering If a terminal patient faces a long, slow, painful death, surely it is much kinder to spare them this kind of suffering and allow them to end their life comfortably. Pain medications used to allieviate symptoms often have unpleasant side effects or may leave the patient in a state of sedation. It is not as if they are really ‘living’ during this time; they are merely waiting to die. They should have the right to avoid this kind of torturous existence and be allowed to die in a humane way. Appeal to "naturalism" is a very bad argument. We take medical pills, we put up an umbrella to avoid having rain fall on us, we try to not live in a tribal manner like our ancestors where we deem ourselves to live a civilized life where we do not simply kill eachother and rape eachother because its the "natural conclusion" of our actions. Suffering may a part of the human condition and it can be argued to be useful in preventing us from self-destructive habits, physical dismemberment or physiological damage due to negligence of the body, etc. However, does that justify that we ought to endure a pointless pain just because it must be part of life's experience? Just because life is unfair doesn't mean we should start treating others unfairly, or just because sex is a part of the human experience, that we have an obligation to perform intercourse. Also, if an argument of biological existence is made, then why is it limited to humans in the treatment of this manner? What is the difference between existence and living? Do people want to live in a state where they cannot progress, breathe, talk, hear, see, suffer from paralysis and slowly die? People do want to live, and merely existing is not enough. If we just had to exist, then why do we need a spectrum of other human experiences? Why do not we just limit ourselves to sleep, eat, reproduce, etc? There is more to life than existing in such a state.

Physician assisted suicide should be legal nationwide. Physicians are supposed to act in the best interest of the patient. Should a terminally ill patient, which is defined as "an individual who has been certified by a physician as having an illness or physical condition which can reasonably be expected to result in death in 24 months or less", choose to forgoe treatment that would have minimal positive impact on their quality or length of life, the physician is not obligated to force treatment [1]. A patient who requests life-ending medications is expressing their legal right to explore all options. Should the physician decide that the patient is capable of making a rational decision to end their life and is not suffering from impaired judgement, that physician is not and should not be held liable for fufilling the reasonable request of the patient [2]. [1] http://definitions.uslegal.com...;[2] https://depts.washington.edu...;

Legalizing euthanasia would allow more open family dialogue on the choice. Where euthanasia is currently illegal, it is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help. The impact on the family who remain can be catastrophic. By legalizing assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into the open. In some cases, families might have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one; being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allowing them to persuade the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of guilt and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death.

Euthanasia First off, I would like to state that I am actually AGAINST Euthanasia, but I am trying to sharpen my debate skills right now. A good debater can see both sides of the issues and figure out what their opponent to say next. So this is just me experimenting a bit. Now that I have explained my real position, let me start off with some reasons why Euthanasia should be legal. 1. Dying with Dignity: If they are able to speak for themselves and they say that they would like to go ahead and peacefully die, then they should get that as their last wish. 2. Suffering: Would you rather somebody suffer for days with an imminent fate, or would you just let them be peacefully put out of their misery? I don't think that they should have to suffer. 3. Free Will: I think that if the patient is in his right mind and wants to go ahead and end it, they should have the free will to have their wish. I look forward to hearing your response and/or counter-argument. I am glad that I accepted this debate.

Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. This debate is on the topic of euthanasia, also called 'assisted suicide'. It is the killing of someone with their permission, usually due to pain or distress the person committing suicide has to undergo daily. I wish for a good and enjoyable debate!

Euthanasia Euthanasia is a very intense topic, as one can imagine. Similar to abortion, questions of life and the worthiness of life exist, however, in this case, it is presumably voluntary (I will respond to this in a later round, as we see that in practice this is often not the case). The issue of euthanasia can be compared to the issue of racial equality when it comes to life. Pro-assisted suicide arguments generally rely upon the premise that some lives aren’t worth living. That if the pain is too severe, if the person feels worthless, or if the fix is too costly for a patient that death is a preferable option to life. In other words, certain lives aren't worth living. However, to argue that some lives are not worth living is in direct opposition to the laws which prohibit and struck down racial prejudice laws. The inviolability of human life is the principle which ‘equal and inalienable’ rights rests upon. It is the failure to understand the intrinsic value of life which leads to a person supporting pro-euthanasia arguments. To respond to this basic premise--of human life--proponents of assisted suicide often use the autonomy argument, but then comes the question: what should the physician do when the patient is incapable of making a decision. Generally, they say it is logical to defer the decision to family members and friends. But as we can see, this is in direct conflict with the autonomy principle which they base their original moral case upon. They are forced to contradict themselves! The simple fact is, if you support physician assisted suicide, you are forced to concede that lives have differing moral values, which is in direct opposition to the foundations of current legal institutions [1]. Doctors certainly agree with the position I am espousing. The Massachusetts Medical Society has voted to reaffirm its opposition to physician assisted suicide. Doctors argue that killing their patients is not their role as a healthcare provider. Deliberate destruction of human life is not acceptable according to their principles--and it should be for any decent human being. To clarify, I am not saying people for euthanasia are evil, I am saying that they need to reevaluate their position in order to support human dignity. Instead, the doctors assert that doctors’ goal should be to alleviate pain and instead make the final days much more pleasant rather than end the life altogether. Let me explain the position a bit more. A physician who helps a patient, even if it means speeding up the time before the patient dies, is not in a morally problematic situation. Death is a foreseeable likelihood but not intended. However if the purpose is to cause death, the doctor is in a precarious situation. The former doctor attempted to help the person--even if it accidentally led to a premature death (or, in many cases, a bearable life, or even recovery), however this doctor is one who chooses death over life. Adam Macleod, Associate Professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, argues “A person who purposely chooses to cause death, who makes death a reason for his actions, is not oriented toward the good. … By choosing life, one becomes a person oriented toward life. By choosing death, one becomes a person oriented toward death. ”[2] The World Medical Association also agrees with this testament, stating “The World Medical Association reaffirms its strong belief that euthanasia is in conflict with basic ethical principles of medical practice, and The World Medical Association strongly encourages all National Medical Associations and physicians to refrain from participating in euthanasia, even if national law allows it or decriminalizes it under certain conditions. ”[3] To conclude my basic point, the basic foundations of our society--the equality of human life--as well as principles which doctors abide by are in direct opposition to physician assisted suicide. To support assisted suicide is to favor death over life, and admit that under some conditions lives of people are worth less than others, which demonizes the weak patients who would ask for such a terrible thing. Euthanasia should remain prohibited and seen as a wrong in society. 1. . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... 2. . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... 3. . http://www.wma.net...

voulentary euthanisa should be legal I stand in negation to the resolution that euthanasia should be legal. 1. The ambiguity of terminal illness is a reasonably insufficient reason to terminate life. Wikipedia states, "Often, a patient is considered to be terminally ill when the life expectancy is estimated to be six months or less, under the assumption that the disease will run its normal course. " (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) The key factors in diagnosing a patient as terminal is time and reasonable assumption. Therefore, it is fair to say that the terminally ill will probably die if the disease runs it's course, but it is not logical or rational to say that the patient will absolutely die. It is important to note that "the six-month standard is arbitrary," underscoring the impossibility of predicting the patient's fate. It is also important to point out that a patient with a deadly disease expected to live for many years is NOT terminal. For example, "a patient with a slowly progressing disease, such as AIDS, may not be considered terminally ill because the best estimates of longevity were greater than six months. " So the question becomes, which factor justifies assisted suicide? The fact that the patient is doomed to die or that he/she is doomed to die soon? Presumably, my opponent appeals to the latter, which will beg the question, how soon is too soon? Is one year soon enough to request death or too long? Six months and one day or five months and 29 days? Any appeal to imminent death is logically arbitrary and should be seen as insufficient in excusing euthanasia, given the burden killing a someone brings upon both the requester and the executioner. --------------- 2. It is unacceptable to request someone else to kill you. Consider for a moment Sue Rodriguez, who was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 1991 and was killed via assisted suicide in 1994. (. http://www.cbc.ca...). While her plea for the legalization of assisted suicide in Canada was debated in the courts, no one considered how completely irresponsible her request truly was. After the court ruled against her she said, "If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life? " She insists that she owns her life but refuses to own her death. If human life has value and belongs to the individual and not to others--as this society overwhelmingly maintains--then by logical extension we own our own deaths. But to place the burden of killing another human on someone else to meet your own needs is the height of hypocrisy. If Sue Rodriguez wanted to die, then she should have accepted the burden herself instead of insisting society's responsibility to do it for her. --------------- 3. Legal euthanasia gives transfers rights from the responsible to the irresponsible. Once euthanasia is made legal, irresponsible people (those unwilling to kill themselves without assistance) can request responsible people (doctors sworn by professional or religious oath never to kill people if it can be helped) to carry out their execution. The ramifications are dangerous. It is not at all far fetched to imagine a situation in which a terminally ill patient is unable to find a local doctor to kill them and also unable to travel the distance to one who will. It is inevitable that the courts will be faced with the decision to make euthanasia a compulsory offering. Doctors unwilling to kill another human ought to never face a lawsuit or loss of career due to an otherwise virtuous conviction--especially since a terminally ill patient already has the right to kill themselves. --------------- We cannot begin to imagine the pain and suffering faced by those deemed terminally ill, but an appeal to emotion cannot save the day. Killing another human being for any reason carries weight, both legally, psychologically, and--for many--spiritually. The request is not to be taken lightly, and simply using an arbitrary guess as to one's fate is not enough to assist in their death. If one want's to take their own life, then they should take responsibility for that which they claim is their right, and dispatch themselves without assistance. Forcing their desires on others is hypocritical, immoral, open to discriminatory action, and ought not to be legalized. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering Libertarian Framework Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere. Death is one of the few serious situations in which it is okay to view things subjectively. The family and friends will be mourning and if they believe that their loved one is in extreme pain and is suffering then the person clearly has the right to an assisted suicide, the state cannot and should not intervene on such personal matters. If they have successfully completed all the required mental health checks and they are clearly sane then they have the right to choose. People that choose to kill themselves because they are in pain and will die very soon can arguably be considered insane however this debate is about whether or not they are mentally capable of making a decision. If this person has decided to allow themselves to die, due to immense suffering and terminal illness then what is the argument to stop them? These are unique circumstances. The person will die and this is inevitable, they are in extreme pain.If you believe that suicide is the alternative then you are mistaken. Assisted suicide is painless, you have a higher chance of success and that it is a decision that your family must agree upon. Suicide is not always painless, it can be a slow death and sometimes you fail to commit suicide and end up increasing your current pain. The issue with preventing them from having an assisted suicide is that you are sentencing them to a life of torture and agony which nobody should deserve to live with.We have the option to put down pets both in the UK and US. Why should pets have greater privileges than humans? Pets get to die painless and peaceful death, on the other hand, we must die painful deaths when we know that death is inevitable. Both of these options are by far better choices than for a person to have to die slowly and painfully due to terminal illness. Essentially, you are the person indirectly sentencing an innocent person (in most cases) to a life of torture and misery. You may claim that the disease is the cause of their torture, which is true. However, you are an indirect cause and therefore you are the murderer. The torturer. Contention 1 - The Right To Die In...cases where there are no dependants who might exert pressure one way or the other, the right of the individual to choose should be paramount. So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions. The Independent, March 2002 We clearly have the right to die (as stated clearly above). We are individuals that should have control over our own lives rather than letting the government to govern them. Rights works should work both ways. If we have the right to live then surely we should have the right to die. Do you wish to prevent an individual from possessing their basic human rights? “The human right to die with dignity. The human right to spare yourself – and those you love – months and years of nothing but misery and pain. We watch our parents get old, and then we see them become ill, and then we watch them die. This is the everyday tragedy that touches all of our lives. But it is grotesque, inhuman and unnecessary that the dying should have to be humiliated and tortured by whatever is killing them.200 courageous Brits have ended their lives in Dignitas over the last ten years. They have been both young and old.There was Daniel James, 23, who was paralysed playing rugby.There was Sir Edward Downes, 85, and his 74-year-old wife Joan, who died within months of each other at Dignitas. Sir Edward was nearly blind and increasingly deaf. Lady Downes had terminal cancer. By ending their lives at Dignitas, they spared themselves needless misery – and they also spared their families needless misery, too.”Many people (including me) think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so they should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing. People should care that this human right is restricted. By allowing the government to control your death, you are essentially putting your lives in the government’s hands and allowing them to dictate both your life and your death. The freedom to assisted suicide is special and should not be ignored, we have control over our lives and logic tells us that if we have control over our lives then surely we should have control over our deaths. And behind that lies the idea that human beings are independent biological entities, with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this. This is the principle that Assisted Suicide is based upon. Contention 2 - Hippocratic Oath Over time the Hippocratic Oath has been modified on a number of occasions as some of its tenets became less and less acceptable. References to women not studying medicine and doctors not breaking the skin have been deleted. The quoted reference to 'do no harm' is also in need of explanation. Does not doing harm mean that we should prolong a life that the patient sees as a painful burden? Surely, the 'harm' in this instance is done when we prolong the life, and 'doing no harm' means that we should help the patient die. Killing the patient--technically, yes. Is it a good thing--sometimes, yes. Is it consistent with good medical end-of-life care: yes. "I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepios and Hygeia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses" This is the opening statement of the original Hippocratic Oath. This is already unconvincing since sticking to this would require all doctors to follow the same religion and believe in the same Gods. However this is a minor issue compared to the absurdity of some of the promises that must be made. The Hippocratic Oath is sexist and here is an example of sexism within the original Oath: - "What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men..." The absurdity of the original Hippocratic Oath is evident and that is why modifications were essential in order for us to expand and progress in society. The modern Hippocratic Oath implies that we have the right to assisted suicide and euthanasia because, as I have said previously, prolonging inevitable death is causing pain. This is a clear violation of the rules within this modified document. The oath is extremely important and cannot be disregarded. The oath binds many doctors to use their ethical conscience and do what is morally right. This moral conscience is the essence of the original oath. Contention 3 - Religious Concerns “Guided by our belief as Unitarian Universalists that human life has inherent dignity, which may be compromised when life is extended beyond the will or ability of a person to sustain that dignity; and believing that it is every person's inviolable right to determine in advance the course of action to be taken in the event that there is no reasonable expectation of recovery from extreme physical or mental disability…” Be it further resolved: That Unitarian Universalists advocate the right to self-determination in dying, and the release from civil or criminal penalties of those who, under proper safeguards, act to honor the right of terminally ill patients to select the time of their own deaths. Be it further resolved: That Unitarian Universalists, acting through their congregations, memorial societies, and appropriate organizations, inform and petition legislators to support legislation that will create legal protection for the right to die with dignity, in accordance with one's own choice. Contention 4 - Living wills Living wills can be used to refuse extraordinary, life-prolonging care and are effective in providing clear and convincing evidence that may be necessary under state statutes to refuse care after one becomes terminally ill. The right to refuse care is insufficient not only because it puts the patients under even more pain but because there is clearly a much stronger, safer and painless option that could easily be used - assisted suicide. A recent Pennsylvania case shows the power a living will can have. In that case, a Bucks County man was not given a feeding tube, even though his wife requested he receive one, because his living will, executed seven years prior, clearly stated that he did 'not want tube feeding or any other artificial invasive form of nutrition'... A living will provides clear and convincing evidence of one's wishes regarding end-of-life care. Contention 5 - Social Groups at risk of abuse One concern has been that disadvantaged populations would be disproportionately represented among patients who chose assisted suicide. Experience in Oregon suggests this has not been the case. In the United States, socially disadvantaged groups have variably included ethnic minorities, the poor, women, and the elderly. Compared with all Oregon residents who died between January 1998 and December 2002, those who died by physician-assisted suicide were more likely to be college graduates, more likely to be Asian, somewhat younger, more likely to be divorced, and more likely to have cancer or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis... Moreover, although 2.6 percent of Oregonians are African American, non African American patients have chosen assisted suicide. Conclusion I have clearly demonstrated that Assisted Suicide should be legalized and it should not remain illegal. I have done this using facts and reliable university studies and sources. I wish my opponent good luck for the following round and am looking forward to an interesting debate.Sourceshttp://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...;

Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering Libertarian Framework Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere. Death is one of the few serious situations in which it is okay to view things subjectively. The family and friends will be mourning and if they believe that their loved one is in extreme pain and is suffering then the person clearly has the right to an assisted suicide, the state cannot and should not intervene on such personal matters. If they have successfully completed all the required mental health checks and they are clearly sane then they have the right to choose. People that choose to kill themselves because they are in pain and will die very soon can arguably be considered insane however this debate is about whether or not they are mentally capable of making a decision. If this person has decided to allow themselves to die, due to immense suffering and terminal illness then what is the argument to stop them? These are unique circumstances. The person will die and this is inevitable, they are in extreme pain.If you believe that suicide is the alternative then you are mistaken. Assisted suicide is painless, you have a higher chance of success and that it is a decision that your family must agree upon. Suicide is not always painless, it can be a slow death and sometimes you fail to commit suicide and end up increasing your current pain. The issue with preventing them from having an assisted suicide is that you are sentencing them to a life of torture and agony which nobody should deserve to live with.We have the option to put down pets both in the UK and US. Why should pets have greater privileges than humans? Pets get to die painless and peaceful death, on the other hand, we must die painful deaths when we know that death is inevitable. Both of these options are by far better choices than for a person to have to die slowly and painfully due to terminal illness. Essentially, you are the person indirectly sentencing an innocent person (in most cases) to a life of torture and misery. You may claim that the disease is the cause of their torture, which is true. However, you are an indirect cause and therefore you are the murderer. The torturer. Contention 1 - The Right To Die In...cases where there are no dependants who might exert pressure one way or the other, the right of the individual to choose should be paramount. So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions. The Independent, March 2002 We clearly have the right to die (as stated clearly above). We are individuals that should have control over our own lives rather than letting the government to govern them. Rights works should work both ways. If we have the right to live then surely we should have the right to die. Do you wish to prevent an individual from possessing their basic human rights? “The human right to die with dignity. The human right to spare yourself – and those you love – months and years of nothing but misery and pain. We watch our parents get old, and then we see them become ill, and then we watch them die. This is the everyday tragedy that touches all of our lives. But it is grotesque, inhuman and unnecessary that the dying should have to be humiliated and tortured by whatever is killing them.200 courageous Brits have ended their lives in Dignitas over the last ten years. They have been both young and old.There was Daniel James, 23, who was paralysed playing rugby.There was Sir Edward Downes, 85, and his 74-year-old wife Joan, who died within months of each other at Dignitas. Sir Edward was nearly blind and increasingly deaf. Lady Downes had terminal cancer. By ending their lives at Dignitas, they spared themselves needless misery – and they also spared their families needless misery, too.”Many people (including me) think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so they should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing. People should care that this human right is restricted. By allowing the government to control your death, you are essentially putting your lives in the government’s hands and allowing them to dictate both your life and your death. The freedom to assisted suicide is special and should not be ignored, we have control over our lives and logic tells us that if we have control over our lives then surely we should have control over our deaths. And behind that lies the idea that human beings are independent biological entities, with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this. This is the principle that Assisted Suicide is based upon. Contention 2 - Hippocratic Oath Over time the Hippocratic Oath has been modified on a number of occasions as some of its tenets became less and less acceptable. References to women not studying medicine and doctors not breaking the skin have been deleted. The quoted reference to 'do no harm' is also in need of explanation. Does not doing harm mean that we should prolong a life that the patient sees as a painful burden? Surely, the 'harm' in this instance is done when we prolong the life, and 'doing no harm' means that we should help the patient die. Killing the patient--technically, yes. Is it a good thing--sometimes, yes. Is it consistent with good medical end-of-life care: yes. "I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepios and Hygeia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses" This is the opening statement of the original Hippocratic Oath. This is already unconvincing since sticking to this would require all doctors to follow the same religion and believe in the same Gods. However this is a minor issue compared to the absurdity of some of the promises that must be made. The Hippocratic Oath is sexist and here is an example of sexism within the original Oath: - "What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men..." The absurdity of the original Hippocratic Oath is evident and that is why modifications were essential in order for us to expand and progress in society. The modern Hippocratic Oath implies that we have the right to assisted suicide and euthanasia because, as I have said previously, prolonging inevitable death is causing pain. This is a clear violation of the rules within this modified document. The oath is extremely important and cannot be disregarded. The oath binds many doctors to use their ethical conscience and do what is morally right. This moral conscience is the essence of the original oath. Contention 3 - Religious Concerns “Guided by our belief as Unitarian Universalists that human life has inherent dignity, which may be compromised when life is extended beyond the will or ability of a person to sustain that dignity; and believing that it is every person's inviolable right to determine in advance the course of action to be taken in the event that there is no reasonable expectation of recovery from extreme physical or mental disability…” Be it further resolved: That Unitarian Universalists advocate the right to self-determination in dying, and the release from civil or criminal penalties of those who, under proper safeguards, act to honor the right of terminally ill patients to select the time of their own deaths. Be it further resolved: That Unitarian Universalists, acting through their congregations, memorial societies, and appropriate organizations, inform and petition legislators to support legislation that will create legal protection for the right to die with dignity, in accordance with one's own choice. Contention 4 - Living wills Living wills can be used to refuse extraordinary, life-prolonging care and are effective in providing clear and convincing evidence that may be necessary under state statutes to refuse care after one becomes terminally ill. The right to refuse care is insufficient not only because it puts the patients under even more pain but because there is clearly a much stronger, safer and painless option that could easily be used - assisted suicide. A recent Pennsylvania case shows the power a living will can have. In that case, a Bucks County man was not given a feeding tube, even though his wife requested he receive one, because his living will, executed seven years prior, clearly stated that he did 'not want tube feeding or any other artificial invasive form of nutrition'... A living will provides clear and convincing evidence of one's wishes regarding end-of-life care. Contention 5 - Social Groups at risk of abuse One concern has been that disadvantaged populations would be disproportionately represented among patients who chose assisted suicide. Experience in Oregon suggests this has not been the case. In the United States, socially disadvantaged groups have variably included ethnic minorities, the poor, women, and the elderly. Compared with all Oregon residents who died between January 1998 and December 2002, those who died by physician-assisted suicide were more likely to be college graduates, more likely to be Asian, somewhat younger, more likely to be divorced, and more likely to have cancer or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis... Moreover, although 2.6 percent of Oregonians are African American, non African American patients have chosen assisted suicide. Conclusion I have clearly demonstrated that Assisted Suicide should be legalized and it should not remain illegal. I have done this using facts and reliable university studies and sources. I wish my opponent good luck for the following round and am looking forward to an interesting debate.Sources are in the comments (as permitted in the rules of R1).

Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide I extend my arguments.

Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Firstly, while yes I agree that there are, "Terminal conditions that exist leading to long-term suffering and severely effect the quality of life", Hospitals are outfitted with extremely strong painkillers such as morphine, oxycodone, and pethidine to name a few. I also 100% agree that the undesirable symptoms would be horrific and aren't sacred. But there are many dangers in legalizing euthanasia. First and foremost, executing euthanasia would give a certain paycheck to the physician who aids in this activity, which could cause mental trauma over time, I mean, you're killing someone. While yes it may be a wanted and legal murder, you are still watching the life flow out of another person's eyes. Not only this, but the heartless people in the world may even run a scam just for the paycheck. This would simply be done by the physician who clears his patient for mentally ill, says that he will deteriorate over time, and then kill his patient. The DNR style confirmation from the patient could simply be forged by the doctor or accidentally signed by the patient if the physician provides a medicine that puts the patient into a drowsy state or half-conscious state. Furthermore, if the patient could've been cured, the physicians career could be ruined, the victims family could even go to court and sue for murder. This legalization would clog the government because they need to create clauses, hear court cases, endure protests.

Euthanasia should be legalized Euthanasia devalues human life Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death There is a "slippery slope" effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only the terminally ill and later laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily.

The legalization of assisted suicide. Allow me to begin with my main points and arguments: 1. It is ones right to choose how and when to die if they so wish. 2. Tremendous amounts of pain and suffering can be saved. 3. Health care costs can be reduced, which would save estates and lower insurance premiums. 4. Vital organs can be saved, helping doctors save more lives. 5. This can result in an easier experience for the families of the patient, letting them say goodbye. 6. This will NOT give doctors the right to kill people. It gives the patient the choice to end their suffering and pain. (1) We as a people have always wanted to give people the right to do as they please with their body. This is a act which will give a person a humane choice. Let them know that they can do as they wish. If it's their body, it should be legal to do as they wish to it. (2) This is a moral act and many people would agree too. If a person is in immense emotional and physical pain, shouldn't they have the option to end their own suffering with out any legal repercussion? I'd like to bring in pets right now. When a pet is in a lot of terminal pain, nearly all people will take it to the vet to have it die in a quick painless and humane way. So we have to ask, why aren't we okay for humans to give themselves this? (3) Health care can be greatly reduced by this inexpensive humane treatment. to continue treatment for a terminal illness can cost thousands of dollars to fighting a illness that is incurable. This will make it easier to pay for and easier financially for the family. (4)Destructive cancers that will destroy organs can be stopped and the organs can be saved to use on other patients in this procedure is used, potentially saving lives. (5)This can result in a easier emotional experience for the family of the patient. This will let them say a formal goodbye, and will let them feel as if their family member is no longer suffering and is going to be happier when they die. (6)This will defiantly NOT give doctors the right to kill people. This will be the patients decision (if they are in sound mind) or in the decision of the family. Just like the right to pull the plug. If an individual is not given proper treatment, an attorney will be called upon. Finally, I encourage my adversary to watch this documentary in full. Please look up on YouTube. com Terry Pratchett: Choosing To Die (2011) - Full Documentary. Conclusion: I believe this is an easy topic to support for reasons I have stated and for the documentary I have linked. I now await my adversary to take the stand.

Euthanasia should be legalized with requirements 2. Subjectivit How is there no option? They do not have to choose euthanasia and they would not be able to if they did not meet the requirements. I speak from personal experience as I have worked in the medical field so I've seen the people that wish for this to be legalized. The families are usually the only reason these people cling to life so for them to wish for death despite having family support speaks for the quality of life. "A person has to determine for themselves what quality of life they have after such a thing occurs." Who's to say that they are not in their right minds? Simply being in pain does not inhibit your sense of right and wrong. "patient has the right to refuse treatment which in many cases is a form of legal suicide." By your own method of thinking pain is there to protect us, it keeps us alive and by committing euthanasia they would be ignoring pains intentions which is to protect us so if someone is refusing treatment while writhing in agony they are ignoring the pain that is meant to save them. In both scenarios people are choosing to ignore the pain which is meant to save their lives. Therefore your statement of pain is irrelevant. "The child has been deemed competent enough to understand the implication of death" In a court of law a child can be deemed competent enough to choose which parent they wish to live with. In extreme cases a child can be deemed competent enough to seek out emancipation as well. Therefore there are almost always exceptions to age limits. Another example would be an 18 year old soldier being sent off to a foreign land and is put into situations where they might have to take the life of another person. They are deemed competent enough to fight a war but not to purchase alcohol. What's easy is forcing ones own views of life onto others when they are not the ones suffering. There are many people that wish to fight the illness till the end but there are also those that just don't have any fight left in them. Their will to fight has broken. Sometimes people try every option available to them and yet they still have no quality of life. It should be the right of the people to determine if they want to live or not. Gallup poll Bandwagon logical fallacy is nothing more than a theory of opinion. Why should we be allowed to force our views of life on other people? What gives us the right to deny them what they so desperately want? People have a nasty habit of sitting themselves up on a pedestal and telling people what they're doing is wrong but that is simply their opinion. To some people its wrong for a person that has some quality of life that they don't have the right to end their life when they have no quality. The logical fallacy is believing that we have the right to take away the choices of others because our beliefs differ from theirs.

Euthanasia should be legalized but with requirements That statement was made in regards to someone that is dying slowly or simply has no value hence the sentences before that statement. Again if someone truly feels that they have the right to end their life at anytime for any reason then they do not need the permission of the law. The law would only decree that you would not receive the assistance of anyone else. I understand what your saying and I even partially agree with you but not to the extent that people should be able to help each other die. It has to be through a physician and the patient has to have a terminal illness or some other terrible affliction such as someone that has been paralyzed from the neck down. There is a difference. Me personally, if I wanted to end my life I would not care in the least what the law says about suicide.

Euthanasia On our last attempt at debating this subject, I had to leave for a vacation where I didn't have access to WiFi. I was forced to forfeit and thus "lost" the debate. I'd be interested in a rematch. I'll use the same arguments i presented for the last debate in the opening round. Con is free to copy and paste his previous arguments as well, or present an entirley new case. Good luck. ==========================================================================First and foremost, one's life belongs to one's own person. People must be free to live (and die) as they please. To suggest otherwise essentially qualifies one as a slave whose life ought to be dictated by other people. The only exception to this supposition regards a human being whose life is not self-realized. This includes fetuses before a certain state of development, living persons in a vegetative state and people so terminally ill that they will assuredly die. Those people's lives can be ended through non-voluntary euthanasia in good conscience, as their 'personhood' status would be challenged given certain criteria of personhood (they lack consciousness) and are therefore no longer eligible for the legal right to life.Voluntary euthanasia gives people the option of dying with dignity on their own terms. It allows them to die peacefully and eases their pain and suffering. Exercising the right to personal autonomy is an inherent component of liberty. The state or interpersonal interference of voluntary euthanasia inhibits freedom. It might also qualify as unnecessary torture. If we logically "put down" animals to ease their pain and soften transition to death, why exclude human beings from the same consideration? It is selfish to dictate how another person lives or dies if they are not harming anyone but themselves by choice. Not allowing people in tremendous pain to opt out is cruel. It presumes that an outsider understands what the patient is feeling and undermines their desires out of selfish and culturally biased values. The patient is entitled to their own values and choices which might be different from other people's. Again, if they are not overtly harming another person, then they have the moral right to end their life or ease their pain on their own terms. Their life belongs to them and them alone. This is why involuntary euthanasia is morally abhorent, but voluntary euthanasia is just. In cases where people could not put an immediate end to their long, drawn out, insuffrable agony (most people do NOT die quickly and painlessly in their sleep) then many choose to kill themselves through other means such as starvation or refusal of treatment. If people want to die they will find a way to die. It's morally sound to make their death as painless as possible.Non-voluntary euthanasia ought to be reserved only for those who are terminally ill and at the very end of their expected life. It would be pointless to argue that a very rare miracle with 0.0000001% chance of probability ought to dictate our legal parameters. Those who have power-of-attorney rights over someone should be able to "pull the plug" at their discretion. Objections to this include fear mongering, such as the ridiculous myth that allowing euthanasia will suddenly make the world murder-hungry and death crazed -- a complete exaggeration with no substantiated proof whatsoever. In countries that have legalized euthanasia such as the Netherlands, euthanasia itself remains a criminal act unless carried out by a qualified doctor with the consent of a legal and ethics expert. This means that mercy killing does not have to be and should not be a frivolous endeavor to be taken lightly. Instead standards would be imposed to ensure the patient is either fully conscious and voluntarily ending their life, or investigating the circumstances surrounding a power-of-attorney or next of kin to make that decision in the case of non-voluntary euthanasia. In other words the process would not target the vulnerable (the old, disabled and wary) and pressure them to end their lives, or leave their lives in the hands of a stranger or one with ulterior motives. It should simply an option in particular circumstances that warrant it. Many people who choose or plan on choosing euthanasia insist that the optional choice enhances the quality of their own lives. They know to make each day count and feel totally in control of how the rest of their life will proceed. This is an invaluable emotional and spiritual gift that almost rivals the gift of physical health. After all, most of us probably hope to die peacefully and painlessly one day since death is inevitable for us all.Finally, I can't ignore the financial and economic analysis surrounding assisted suicide. While you cannot put a price on life, the cost of end-of-life care is objectively not worth the money when you factor inevitability and the state of the prolonged life. It could cost tens of thousands of dollars to keep someone alive for even just a few days while they are not even aware they are alive. Considering many of these people don't want to be alive (and will waste money living in agony instead of making better use of that money for the living whose lives are valued and actually improved by that money), then you have to consider who really benefits from forced survival - especially if the cost is being passed on to others. There's no legitimately good reason to mandate that another person live against their will, especially if they are suffering. Fear mongering won't work when scrutinizing statistics. For example in 2005, a study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient’s explicit permission. This among other facts would immediately rule out the notion that permissible euthanasia would compel a death frenzy. This process is typically reserved for those who want to die with dignity - not those with a presumed incentive to kill others.A Dutch report found that in 86 percent of cases, euthanasia shortened life by a maximum of a week and usually only a few hours. In other words, it was a last resort - an escape used by patients in unbearable agony who would rather that agony be ended now than in two days time. We have no reason to believe that the option would be abused. Even if it were a possibility, the fact that almost every single aspect of our lives is subjected to possible corruption, abuse or misuse would likely significantly undermine those arguments in comparison to the reality of forced life which is essentially torture for many terminally ill euthanasia recipients. Facilitating death with dignity doesn't mean that a patient would be excluded from the best care or have other options ignored or dismissed preemptively. It simply ensures one's life is not valued by longevity but quality. [ References ]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Euthanasia should be legalized with requirements People should have the right to choose when to end their life when their is justifiable cause such as a terminally ill patient, prisoner sentenced to life, major amputee, etc. It is not being suggested that a teenager going through a severe bout of depression because of bullying or their first heart break should have this option. This is for people who's life no longer holds any intrinsic value.

Physician assisted suicide (Euthanasia) Point: Those in the late stages of a terminal illness have a horrific future ahead of them. The gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to "control" their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity. One particular account was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with the help of an anonymous physician committed suicide in February 1994.[1] [1]Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 http://www.euthanasia.cc... (accessed 6/6/2011)

Euthanasia should be legalized == Rebuttal ==(1) PainFirst, pain isn't the reason people seek euthanasia. The reason people seek euthanasia over 93% of the time is loss of autonomy. Pain is rarely (if ever) cited as a reason people seek euthanasia. [1]Second, the answer to pain isn't euthanasia. The way to deal with pain is through pain control (which is getting better each year) or through "terminal sedation." In "terminal sedation" patients in pain are put into a deep sleep until they die naturally; this is an acceptable practice that doesn't require intentional killing.Third, we shouldn't change the law based on emotions such as pity (which is effectively what Pro's appeals to pain are). An emotional response to a situation isn't inherently the correct response. Just as acts inspired by anger or jealousy are often wrong in the eyes of the law, so acts inspired by pity and compassion aren't necessarily just. Proponents of euthanasia usually bring up as many tragic cases as they possibly can because they know the immediate gut reaction benefits them. But laws shouldn't be determined by immediate gut reactions to a single case. Laws are general and need to be forward-looking; they're designed to produce the best outcomes overall. No law produces the best outcome in every case, and we have to be careful about letting our emotions play a role in determining the law.(2) AutonomyI agree with Pro that people should have the freedom to refuse medical treatment and the freedom to commit suicide. We only disagree about the freedom to be euthanized (which I argue isn't a basic right). Pro argues that euthanasia is a basic right as a matter of autonomy (i.e. self-determination). But under an autonomy principle, we'd have to honor requests to be euthanized from all competent individuals. Either we approve all acts of self-destruction on the basis of the who-are-we-to-judge principle, or we don't allow euthanasia at all. Pro's halfway euthanasia -- allowing it for the terminally ill but nobody else -- simply cannot be justified by an autonomy principle. To approve of euthanasia on the basis of autonomy necessarily extends euthanasia to all autonomosly arrived-at decisions. Thus, Pro can't justify euthanasia through autonomy, since his advocacy restricts the availability of euthanasia.(3) CostsPro says euthanasia would "reduce waiting times and improve the overall quality of care." First, apply this against Pro: with escalating medical costs, states acting as guardians of financially-burdensome persons would have incentives to euthanize. Pro says the state shouldn't encourage euthanasia, but that's precisely what it'll do, at least in effect, because of escalating medical costs. Second, justifying euthanasia on the basis of medical costs turns a moral question -- whether doctors can kill their patients? -- into an economic question. That's simply ignoring the real issue at stake in the euthanasia debate. The reality is that economic matters don't -- or at least shouldn't -- factor into moral decisions.(4) Affect on InnocentsPro says "innocents" are harmed by making euthansia illegal. But this is simply untrue. First, in the Mancini case, the Pennsylvania woman wasn't convicted of anything. Her case was actually dismissed by a judge because the prosection's case was based entirely on "speculation and guesswork." [2] Second, in the Marie Fleming case, nobody innocent was ever prosecuted. Third, there's little indication that anyone is ever prosecuted for assisted suicide or euthanasia, so Pro's fears are simply unfounded. == Equality ==(1) Death is not the same as a parking spot. Giving the disabled parking spots doesn't send a message that disabled people are expendable. It says nothing about the value of a disabled person's life. Parking spots just send a message that disabled people are disabled. That doesn't mean their life is any less valuable. By contrast, telling disabled people that doctors are legally allowed to kill them but not allowed to kill others clearly sends a message that they're expendable. And sending a message that the disabled are expendable while others aren't sends a clear message that the disabled person's life is less valuable.(2) I'm not confusing anything objective or subjective. I'm distinguishing between intrinsic value and instrumental value. I argue that equal protection of the law only applies if human life is valuable in and of itself (i.e. if human life has intrinsic value). If human life isn't valuable in and of itself, if human life is just a means for acquiring something else, then there's no reason to treat all human beings with equal respect (i.e. if human life only has instrumental value). Pro doesn't seem to understand the distinction between intrinsic value and instrumental value. It's a pretty standard distinction in moral philosophy. [3]== Unintended Consequences ==(1) Pro doesn't address the "slippery slope" arguments at all. Legalizing voluntary euthanasia leads to the legalization of non-voluntary euthanasia. The slippery slope is not just a theoretical probability -- the slippery slope is an empircal reality, proven by the Dutch experiment. Pro doesn't dispute that at all. He just says that non-voluntary euthanasia is different and therefore irrelevant. But it's not irrelevant, because it's the direct result of legalizing voluntary euthanasia, as both a theoretical and empirical matter.(2) Pro misrepresents Dutch law. In the Netherlands, doctors can kill patients without their consent. [Pro's 3] [4] [5] The conditions Pro cites are actually just the conditions necessary to avoid prosecution, even if there was an error or abuse. Furthermore, there's tons of evidence of euthanasia performed incorrectly in the Netherlands. [Pro's 3] Official Dutch surveys show a high incidence of clandestine euthanasia, suggesting that half of all killings go unreported to authorities as required by law. And in these unreported incidents, most doctors admit to not following any required protocols. [4]== Corruption ==(1) Pro suggests that euthanasia doesn't violate the Hippocratic Oath. This is what the Hippocratic Oath says: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I give advice which may cause death." If doctors can't give advice that causes death, they certainly can't euthanize their patients. The Hippocratic Oath requires that doctors heal, and it prohibits them from killing their patients.(2) Pro misunderstands my absolution point. If a patient can commit suicide, but chooses instead to have a doctor euthanize him or her, then that patient is absolved of any moral responsibility that comes from committing suicide. The doctor thus functions as a priest, taking moral responsibility for his patient's death instead of his patient. Euthanasia places doctors in a moral rather than medical role. That euthanasia requires no medical monitoring only serves to emphasize this point.(3) Pro doesn't against my point that euthanasia could disincentivize the development of better medical care. Instead, Pro challenges me to provide empirical evidence, but that mistakes the nature of my argument. I was making an analytic argument based on the laws of economics. To adequately respond, my opponent must explain why my analysis is wrong, not simply request empirical evidence. The logic for my argument is straightforward -- euthanasia is a cheap means of responding to patients suffering grave pain, so why research better medical care if euthanasia is a cheaper option? Thus, legalization disincentivizes research of better pain medicines. == Suicide ==(1) Assisted SuicideI didn't realize my opponent was arguing for assisted suicide -- the resolution said euthanasia specifically -- so I'll drop this point.(2) NecessityEven those with "locked-in" syndrome, paralyzed entirely except for eye movements, have an option of refusing food and water as long as they can communicate their wishes. The reality is that anyone can kill themselves with a little forward planning and determination. That fact makes euthanasia unnecessary. Nicklinson's case shows that there's escape from life for anyone who wants it. Furthermore, there may be a technological fix to locked-in syndrome in the future; it's important to incentivize technological advancement over euthanasia.(3) Make Deadly Drugs AvailableFirst, Pro's autonomy, compassion, and who-are-we-to-judge principles support making deadly drugs available to everyone. If someone wants to kill themselves, who are we to judge?Second, the point of making deadly drugs available is to provide a quick and painless death. That's also the point of assisted suicide, except my version is better because suicides are morally responsible for their deaths instead of doctors. There's no corruption of the medical profession, and there's no risk of abuse or mistake (i.e. involuntary euthanasia).Third, anyone can commit murder or suicide already, so there's no reason murder or suicide rates would increase. Murder is already illegal; that's enough disincentive for murder. Access to lethal drugs doesn't incentivize murder more than all the other means for murder. And access to lethal drugs also doesn't incentivize suicide; there's already ways to kill yourself available. In fact, available drugs can already be used to kill yourself. These drugs are simply more efficient at it, but that doesn't mean suicides would increase. However, I want to emphasize that my advocacy doesn't depend on making deadly drugs available. I'm simply offering two better options: (1) the status quo (where euthanasia is simply illegal), or (2) making deadly drugs available. I argue that each of these options is better than legalizing euthanasia, but I don't need to prove both to win this debate. As long as one of these options is better than euthanasia, I win the debate.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] Neil Gorsuch, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia[5] http://tinyurl.com...

Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide If the patient is suffering from an extreme amount of pain, they may enter palliative care. Palliative care reduces the pain as much as they can so that they can spend their last days with their family. If the person would like to end their life right away, how do you know that they're are in the right mental state. Their illness may have affected them so they should not be able to determine to end their life then and there.

Assisted Suicide/ Euthenasia Assisted Suicide. Why? Don't Legalize Euthanasia! Euthanasia, a term that can be described as "mercy killing" or the ending of a person's life because they no longer have the desire to live. Euthanasia has been a worldwide controversial debate for many years. Two types of euthanasia may be discussed, active and passive. Active described as "killing" and passive as "allowing to die." Is it the physical pain or is it depression that leads a person to desire death? If foreign countries allow, and cannot control their own "mercy killings," why wouldn't the United States follow in their footsteps? These questions and life are too often taken for granted. Euthanasia goes against our morals and duties as human beings. It should not be legalized in the United States, and where it is legal it should be stopped. Active euthanasia is the more controversial of the two types. Supporters of active euthanasia base their defense on "One, it is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person for his or her life to be mercifully ended in order to avoid future suffering and/or indignity. Two, the individual choice should be respected to the extent that it does not result in harm to others; since no one is harmed by terminally ill patients' undergoing active euthanasia...". The common rebuttal to this is, "One, Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong. Two, killing is incompatible with the professional responsibilities of the physician. And three, any systematic acceptance of active euthanasia would lead to detrimental social consequences (e.g., via a lessening of respect for human life)". Basically, a physician has a clear moral obligation to his/her patients, to cure and comfort. This "obligation" does not entail killing the patient. Lets talk about Bob, what about Bob. Bob contracted polio at the age of five; initially, he was paralyzed from the neck down. Doctors told his parents that he would never walk again. Due to impairment of respiration and other problems, they believed that he would not live to the age of twenty-one. He also might have been a perfect candidate for physician-assisted suicide. Were the doctors thinking "better dead than disabled?" That it would be better to kill your son now in return for 20 years of hospital bills just to have him die? It seems as if there was an attempt to put a price on a person's life. Assisted suicide is most commonly contemplated by the terminally ill. Terminally ill patients do suffer greatly, but is it the physical pain they suffer from? Many physicians seem to believe it is depression that leads these patients to desire suicide. "USA Today has reported that among older people suffering from terminal illnesses who attempt suicide, the number suffering from depression reaches almost 90%" (Why We Shouldn't Legalize Assisting Suicide). Dr. Jack Kevorkian believes that any person with a disabling disease who doesn't suffer from depression is "abnormal." What is hard for these people to understand who are pro-euthanasia is that depression is treatable and even curable. A person would suffer a lot less physically if they suffered less mentally. Some medical doctors also feel this way. I think depression factors in greatly with the terminally ill patients, some more than others do. Let's take AIDS patients for example. In time, they suffer greatly physically and mentally. Does this constitute their ability to have suicide granted upon request? No, if it were so, millions of people would die, and look how frivolous life would seem if it were legal to have your own life taken. Physician-assisted suicide in foreign countries has proved to be catastrophic. "In 1990, physicians in the Netherlands were involved in 11,800 deaths, or 9% of all deaths in the country. Of these, half were labeled "active involuntary euthanasia", that is, the patient was killed without his consent" (Ohio Right to Life). For example, "by the late 80's it had become routine to "euthanize" babies born with handicaps, like Downs syndrome and spina bifida. Three nurses in Amsterdam killed several comatose patients without any consent. They were convicted, not of homicide, but of failing to consult a physician" (Ohio Right to Life). All of this has occurred in a country where euthanasia is legal. How would it be possible for the United States to keep it under control? "If we can't even control the actions of one doctor (Jack Kevorkian) when physician-assisted suicide is illegal, how can we expect to regulate the actions of thousands of doctors where physician-assisted suicide is legal" (Christian Medical & Dental Society). The United States should learn from the mistakes of other nations and think twice about making physician assisted suicide legal. Life is taken for granted all too often, people always look for the shortcuts, the easy way out. Death should never be a persons last resort, there will always be an alternative. Humans cannot be compared to animals either. We can't be taken to a veterinarian to be put to sleep. It is immoral and dehumanizing. People rarely take into consideration how precious life is. Feelings of depression and guilt often overwhelm the sick. They only think of one way out. If euthanasia were to be legalized, the already declining morals and ethics of this country would be further compromised. Making it legal to kill is immoral, and goes against our duties in society.

Euthanasia Every human being owns his or her life. It's the ultimate possession. Many have religious beliefs that claim that their lives are the property of their god or gods. Those individuals might decide to allow their deity to decide their ultimate fate, and it's their right to do so. Not everyone will agree with that and, for those that do not, there's no reason why competent individuals shouldn't have the right to determine their own ultimate fate. For those that are physically capable of it, suicide is an option but, for those that are physically incapable, euthanasia should be, in my opinion, an available alternative under certain circumstances. Competent adults who are experiencing extreme intractable and untreatable physical or mental anguish should be able to request their medical professional for euthanasia and that professional should be able to grant those rational requests that meet her professional and personal ethical standards. In my opinion, the medical profession should have, as its ultimate purpose, the relief of human suffering and while that usually is congruent with the preservation of life, there will be situations when that's not the case. For those patients, euthanasia should be one of the tools that can be made available. I thank Con for offering this debate and for her wise and compassionate perspectives.

Euthanasia should be legalised First of all, I encourage pro to reread the quote from the Supreme Court, pro asserted in round 1 that there was a right to end your life prematurely. This quote explicitly rejects that on a legal basis. Furthermore, it has been referenced as if it was found in violation of a law. The Due Process Clause is not just a law, it is a part of the Constitution, wherein all the rights of American citizens are outlined. The Supreme Court, who has the duty of interpreting the Constitution, says that the right to die, as asserted by many supporters of euthanasia, has no Constitutional basis as a right. Returning to another argument pro made in round 1, you seem to suggest that the legalisation of euthanasia would reduce suicide rates. What is your source for this? Otherwise it is a presumption that is irrelevant. Pro also focus on only the back half of my quote from the Hippocratic Oath. I do believe that the first half is "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked..." This EXPLICITLY bans euthanasia. Not just advising it, but the actual act. Euthanasia also is a decision that would be made when a person is in extreme distress. It would be making, literally, one of the last decisions of your life under the influence of extreme pain and when you are desperate for relief. To continue, there is no clear line of where to stop euthanasia. Euthanasia is supposed to be given to the suffering right? But what do we define as suffering? A person with a terminal illness under horrible pain, a mentally ill person who will never to live out their life to the fullest, an infant with a horrible birth defect, or even a perfectly healthy newborn? The answer may appear clear us, especially when it's the last example that is in question. However, according to the National Review, even in the United Kingdom, where euthanasia is extremely restricted, some hospitals have resorted to killing perfectly healthy newborns in order to meet their quotas and receive the government funding associated with it. Finally, this "Slippery Slope" is compounded by the financial implications of legalised euthanasia. Studies show that euthanasia will save the government and hospitals money. While some might see this as positive, it could mean that people are pressured into suicide by hospitals and the Government looking to save money.

Euthanasia should be legalised. Euthanasia should be legalised. How would you feel if, each breath you take in feels like a hot spike shooting through your stomach and chest? If each step you take makes you want to hurl. If you were told that, in a month or so you were bound to die, and even though everything is so painful you have to keep on trudging through life to finally reach the peace offered by death? The definition of euthanasia is as follows: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy (Merriam-Webster). Euthanasia is essentially giving someone permission to commit suicide (or if they cannot do so, a doctor helping them commit suicide). People need this permission because suicide is technically illegal, and they must obtain this permission from doctors. Once they have, the doctor will proceed to either kill the patient (in the case that the patient cannot kill themselves) or observe the patient's death to make sure it is as painless as possible. The patients usually die pretty peacefully by overdosing on some kind of drug. A DOCTOR MUST OBTAIN THE PATIENT'S CONSENT BEFORE EUTHANIZING THEM. If they do not, they are breaking the law and committing murder, not an act of euthanasia. Legalizing euthanasia won't give doctors the power to kill people whenever they want. This is true for every jurisdiction I know of. You say that legalizing euthanasia will make the disabled people feel unequal? Why, because they are legally allowed to commit suicide and people who aren't disabled aren't? I don't quite understand. People only try to be euthanized if they want a relatively painless and controlled death. Otherwise, one could just commit suicide normally. Besides, legalizing euthanasia doesn't mean you have to use it. If you want to struggle for life to the very end, well, there's nothing wrong with that.

Euthanasia should not be legalized. My opponent begins by claiming that bodily autonomy is a myth. While it may not be real in the legal sense, I've explained that we should be discussing what the law ought to be. I've argued why we should have bodily autonomy in the fullest sense, even though that is not always the case legally. Con writes, "We can all agree that acts of violence should be recognized as punishable by the state. This is what bodily integrity is." However violence should not be punished by the state; aggression should be punished by the state. The distinction is that aggression involves physical force against another person, which infringes on other people's rights. On the contrary, bodily integrity is the right of the individual to do what they please with their own body. Con (snidely) comments that "nothing upsets people more than telling people they can't do what they want." However I have not argued that people should be able to do whatever they want, but free to do whatever they want with their OWN body. I will copy and paste what I said last round because it's important: Pro is arguing that other people should dictate how we use our bodies. This would effectively make us slaves. If Pro is correct and we do NOT possess stewardship of our own bodies, then rape would be perfectly fine, because how other people wanted to use our bodies is somehow more important than how we choose to use our own bodies. Obviously this is a shoddy standard. We possess the right to bodily autonomy because any other standard means our bodies can be dictated by other people's desires.==Con writes, "Despite what she says, I do not find it appalling that people have debated standards of personhood." However in the previous round, he wrote, "I ask: who gets to decide the criteria of personhood? ...The notion that anyone can claim such a position is appalling." As you can see, I used his own words here. However Con says what he finds appalling is that a so called ethical "expert" would exercise their subjective and politically defined view of ethics. There are no ethical experts, he says, only ethical philosophers... and yet this is an incredibly hypocritical position. He concedes that his opinion is completely arbitrary. It's a subjective preference based on his cultural conditioning and his individual, personal values.This is exactly why acknowledging and upholding individual rights is so important. If I would prefer to die peacefully and painlessly, as opposed to suffer a long, drawn out, insufferable, traumatic, painful, agonizing death -- that should be my right, as I am not hurting anyone else and should be able to exercise MY values over MY person. Con readily admits that there is no such thing as an ethical expert, yet hypocritically insists that HIS value system ought to dictate how other people live (or end) their lives. While he criticizes people for wanting to "do what they want," he also wants to do what he wants: prohibit people from exercising their personal freedom. The difference here is clear. I am arguing that we have individual rights to dictate how we treat our own bodies, so long as it does not involve aggression (force) against another. Yet Con wants to use government force to make it criminal for us to govern our own bodies. He wants to aggressively impose his personal ideals based on HIS politically defined view of ethics. ==Con also says that I have brought up abortion; however, I only mentioned one single line about abortion. I pointed out that sentience is a reasonable standard for qualifying the right to life and personhood, which is why it is morally and legally utilized in that regard (where abortion is only legal in the early stages of pregnancy). Here was my singular abortion reference: Unlike fetuses that are not YET sentient, euthanasia is typically reserved for those who willnever again become sentient. I proved that in most cases it was reserved for the end of one's natural life. ==Con states, "If I said that a handicapped person has less value as a human being, I'm sure she would not respect my subjective point of view. This is why we need a universal human standard of unalterable value." First, Con is correct that I would not respect his subjective point of view. However his POV is meaningless. Unless he was trying to infringe upon a handicapped person's rights, he is entitled to hold whatever opinion he wants, however asinine or outrageous I might find it. Now if he suggested killing someone for being handicapped, the law should step in as that involves aggression against another person. I've made myself perfectly clear throughout this debate. People often choose euthanasia while they are fully conscious and readily willing. People also choose power of attorneys that they trust to make life-or-death medical decisions for them. As such, Con is drawing incomparable analogies by bringing up aggression of handicapped people. He is suggesting I would condone violence against others, just because I have condoned "violence" against the self which is unfounded. Moreover, there already IS a human standard of unalterable value that I have proposed to distinguish the right to life: a particular level of sentience or self-awareness.==In conclusion, I'll re-cap my arguments. 1. One's life belongs to one's own person due to the concept of bodily autonomy. To reject this principle means our bodies are at the mercy of other people's desires.(Fortunately, both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognize the right to bodily integrity.)2. Voluntary euthanasia gives people the option of dying with dignity on their own terms. It allows them to die peacefully and eases their suffering.3. Not allowing people in tremendous pain to opt out is cruel. It presumes that an outsider understands what the patient is feeling and undermines their desires out of culturally biased, subjective preferences and selfish desires. 4. Non-voluntary euthanasia ought to be reserved only for those who are terminally ill and at the very end of their expected life. It should only be legally enacted by a power of attorney.5. End-of-life care is ridiculously expensive and futile. Patients are in tremendous pain or completely unaware that they even exist. Forcing them to stay alive against their wishes is cruel and unusual. 6. We show greater concern for pets. We don't want animals to suffer at the end of their lives, but Con wants people to suffer, often against their will.7. People who want to die will either commit suicide or refuse medical treatment. This means they will die in a lot of agony and pain (when they are still conscious). If they can legally refuse treatment and kill themselves that way, why not let them "kill themselves" without needless suffering? 8. Facilitating death with dignity doesn't mean that a patient would be excluded from the best care, or have other options ignored or dismissed preemptively. It simply ensures one's life is not valued by longevity but quality.

Assisted suicide should be legalized Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James. After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die!!

euthanasia Since my opponent has provided arguments in R1 and has provided no debate structure I will provide arguments in this round. I will provide rebuttals in the next round in order to make it fair for my opponent and due to the character limit. Contention 1 - Libertarian View (My view) Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere. If they have successfully completed all the required mental health checks and they are clearly sane then they have the right to choose. If this person has decided to allow themselves to die, due to immense suffering and terminal illness then what is the argument to stop them? This is not suicide. Suicide is rarely done for medical related issues concerning themselves. The issue with preventing them from having an assisted suicide is that you are sentencing them to a life of torture and agony which nobody should deserve to live with. We sentence murderers to long term prison (in the UK) and we kill them in most parts of America. Both of these options are by far better choices than for a person to have to die slowly and painfully due to terminal illness. Essentially, you are the person indirectly sentencing an innocent person (in most cases) to a life of torture and misery. You may claim that the disease is the cause of their torture, which is true. However, you are an indirect cause and therefore you are the murderer. The torturer. Contention 2 - The Right To Die In...cases where there are no dependants who might exert pressure one way or the other, the right of the individual to choose should be paramount. So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions. The Independent, March 2002 We clearly hae the right to die (as stated clearly above). Do you wish to prevent an individual from possessing their basic human rights? Many people (including me) think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so they should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing. And behind that lies the idea that human beings are independent biological entities, with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this. This is the principle that Euthanasia is based upon. Contention 3 - Hippocratic OathOver time the Hippocratic Oath has been modified on a number of occasions as some of its tenets became less and less acceptable. References to women not studying medicine and doctors not breaking the skin have been deleted. The much-quoted reference to 'do no harm' is also in need of explanation. Does not doing harm mean that we should prolong a life that the patient sees as a painful burden? Surely, the 'harm' in this instance is done when we prolong the life, and 'doing no harm' means that we should help the patient die. Killing the patient--technically, yes. Is it a good thing--sometimes, yes. Is it consistent with good medical end-of-life care: absolutely yes. Whilst, some may argue that the Hippocratic Oath should not have been modified and we should be sticking to the original Hippocratic Oath, there are many problems with this argument. Hippocrates (creator of the Hippocratic Oath) lived between 460 and 370 BCE — a golden age of science and art in Ancient Greece. It may be a known fact that Hippocrates was a genius there are many new circumstances that were irrelevant or nonexistent at the time of the writing of the Hippocratic Oath. "I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepios and Hygeia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses"This is the opening statement of the original Hippocratic Oath. This is already unconvincing since sticking to this would require all doctors to follow the same religion and believe in the same Gods. However this is a minor issue compared to the absurdity of some of the promises that must be made. The Hippocratic Oath is sexist and here is an example of sexism within the original Oath: - "What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men..."The absuirtity of the original Hippocratic Oath is evident and that is why modifications were essential in order for us to exand and progress in society. The modern Hippocratic Oath implies that we have the right to euthanasia because, as I have said previously, prolonging inevitable death is causing pain. This is a clear violation of the rules within this modified document. Contention 4 - Religious Concerns Guided by our belief as Unitarian Universalists that human life has inherent dignity, which may be compromised when life is extended beyond the will or ability of a person to sustain that dignity; and believing that it is every person's inviolable right to determine in advance the course of action to be taken in the event that there is no reasonable expectation of recovery from extreme physical or mental disability... BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That Unitarian Universalists advocate the right to self-determination in dying, and the release from civil or criminal penalties of those who, under proper safeguards, act to honor the right of terminally ill patients to select the time of their own deaths; and... BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED: That Unitarian Universalists, acting through their congregations, memorial societies, and appropriate organizations, inform and petition legislators to support legislation that will create legal protection for the right to die with dignity, in accordance with one's own choice. Contention 5 - Living wills Living wills can be used to refuse extraordinary, life-prolonging care and are effective in providing clear and convincing evidence that may be necessary under state statutes to refuse care after one becomes terminally ill. A recent Pennsylvania case shows the power a living will can have. In that case, a Bucks County man was not given a feeding tube, even though his wife requested he receive one, because his living will, executed seven years prior, clearly stated that he did 'not want tube feeding or any other artificial invasive form of nutrition'...A living will provides clear and convincing evidence of one's wishes regarding end-of-life care.Contention 6 - Social Groups at risk of abuse One concern has been that disadvantaged populations would be disproportionately represented among patients who chose assisted suicide. Experience in Oregon suggests this has not been the case. In the United States, socially disadvantaged groups have variably included ethnic minorities, the poor, women, and the elderly. Compared with all Oregon residents who died between January 1998 and December 2002, those who died by physician-assisted suicide were more likely to be college graduates, more likely to be Asian, somewhat younger, more likely to be divorced, and more likely to have cancer or amytrophic lateral sclerosis... Moreover, although 2.6 percent of Oregonians are African American, no African American patients have chosen assisted suicide. Sources http://www.doctorsreview.com...http://occupytheory.org... https://www.google.co.uk...https://www.google.co.uk...;

Assisted suicide should be legalized The gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to "control" their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity. One particular account was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with the help of an anonymous physician committed suicide in February 1994. I think the situation will end by death in any case. So it is better to fulfill the last desire of the patient, event this desire will lead to death!!

Should euthanasia be legal Euthanasia should be legal for anyone who no longer desires to live, and to families where a family member is unable to choose death due to a lack of comprehension that they are even alive. Why is it humane to euthanize a pet that is suffering yet humans are required by law to suffer til they die.

Euthanasia - Putting People out of Their Misery Euthanasia should remain illegal in the United States. Though many people are suffering from suffering due to injury or illness modern medicine has been effective in controlling and making pain less sever in those who are suffering, they do not need to be assisted in suicide to alleviate their pain. If euthanasia is to become legal it may result in abuse, for example a family member may try and convince their terminally ill relative to ask to be euthanized because they will be a financial strain on them or they wish to collect their inheritance, even though it may be against their individual's wishes. Suffering is an important part of life, and through suffering a person learns to better appreciate life and makes peaces with things that happened in their past and the people in their life. If you eliminate this process it may result negatively on those who knew the individual.

Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering I wish him good luck in this debate. Libertarian Grim Dark FrameworkThroughout history people have been inspired to make inventions to help the masses and progress soceity. Though the sad fact is tha the government hasn't always used these inventions to the best of their use in order to help people. The Guillotine being one of the greatest examples of a doctor creating an invention for a more humane way for prisoner executions. He had no idea that the Revolutionaries would use this to execute thousands in the Reign of Terror. He had no idea that France would use this to silence their political opposition. Peter Jensen has seen his invention of the loud speaker to turn into a massive invasion of privacy and brainwashing as Hitler took the project and changed it to how he saw fit. Euthanasia. Even though there's a good intention behind the practice history has shown that if you give the government the power of the invention via legalization that it will be used for the wrong reason. Many great authors have already begun to forecast this. The best example is that of "The Giver" where the weak are killed off via infantcide and the old are euthanized. There is already a beginning of a mounting support for the practice of eugenics and if this becomes legalized then it will enlarge the government and allow them to infrindge on the rights of their citizens and even take their lives. In this debate I will show why it shouldn't be legalized as we are already seeing this fall from grace and it is our job of this generation to halt this trampling of our rights before we give the government another weapon like the Guillotine or even the Dark Net. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1] Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. [2] A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. Contention 2: The Slippery Slope ArgumentKeown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, “If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia. ” However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. [3] . ) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. [4]The euthanasia’s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia’s have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing? "From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain. "From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases. "From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" [5]You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]:42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicidePhysician Characteristics:79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicidePhysicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South[7] and [8]Contention 3: Self Ownership and SicknessConsent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia’s have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round)Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. [9]For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. [10]Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, "“it is thegreatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right andwrong. ” [11]This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society. Due to me running out of characters my sources will be presented in the comments section.

Every human being has a right to life Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions.[1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James.[2]  After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die.  While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process.  The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering and tto chose the time and manner of their death. [1]Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005, http://www.assistedsuicide.org/suicide_laws.html (accessed 4/6/2011) [2]Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/oct/17/rugbyunion  (accessed 6/6/2011)

euthanasia Euthanasia is indeed a very complicated process, and questions on the basis of our own mortality will always be extremely difficult morally and spiritually. There are many questions, as my opponent has shown, that can prove to be difficult in answering whether or not euthanasia should be a legal practice. I will attempt to answer these questions now, providing a suitable basis for moral and ethical euthanasia. >Is it an option when a man is suicidal? You may think that people who want euthanasia are suicidal because they want to die, or you may not think that. If it is indeed suicide, it would depend on the circumstances. >Is it the choice of the man to be mercy-killed? Euthanasia is a very complex choice for those who wish to do it. If somebody is suffering and will not survive their illness, then it is justified for the person to terminate their own life to avoid the prolonging of their own suffering and the suffering of others. >Is it the choice of his friends and family? No. If a terminally ill person wants to live on, that is their decision. >Can any man say it was a mercy-kill? This depends on what you mean, again. Since it is up to the patient, the death is caused by a terminal sickness but suffering is reduced by the patient's own actions. >Can we trust the doctor? Doctors are generally trustful, but I understand your scepticism when it comes to deciding death. I would make necessary for euthanasia to have consultations with TWO SEPARATE physicians to determine whether an illness is terminal and if euthanasia could be justified from the suffering, and a psychiatrist to determine if the patient has a sound mind to decide their own death. You suggest that euthanasia cannot be regulated, but this is what supporters of euthanasia are trying to do. Currently it is not illegal for a terminally ill person to kill themselves, it is only illegal for those to assist him. Making euthanasia LEGAL AND REGULATED would place necessary barriers to make euthanasia open and safer for those who are terminally ill and suffering.

Euthanasia should be legal in all states! You seem to keep going back to pain as an your main reason for euthanasia. (Please correct me if I am wrong). Your question of "Why let them die in pain?? "Causing deaths through efforts to reduce pain is very different than administering overdoses with the intent to end lives. Pain relief treatment is not euthanasia and giving increasing doses of narcotics can be incompetent medical practice " at a certain point different pain relief modalities can be required. Unfortunately, some physicians" medical knowledge is substandard in this regard," Margaret Somerville, director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University" It goes on to further clarify with, ""If we were to go down the route they are talking about, it would create more confusion," says Schadenberg, who believes, if the College"s proposal became law, doctors would be under more scrutiny when patients on pain medication die. "Why did they use that high amount? Did they use it to kill the pain or kill the patient?" (US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Search. Oct 19, 2009) From The Life Resources Charitable Trust with regards to pain as a reason for early death: "Hard cases make bad laws: Euthanasia is usually promoted by those who have had a loved one die in agony, without the benefits of good palliative care. The answer is not to change the law, but rather improve standards of care". "Voluntary euthanasia always becomes involuntary: The 1990 Remmelink Report commissioned by the Dutch government confirms the inevitable slide into flouting legal safeguards." (The Life Resources Charitable Trust, 2011) Legislation will numb public conscience: The law is a powerful educator of public conscience. People cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted. The Nazi euthanasia program revealed the desensitizing of those involved. One reason many do not consider that is similar to the abortion issue is: Personal autonomy important, but never absolute: A person's decision to end their life, or have an abortion, can have profound, often lifelong effects on the lives of others. (The mother, father & family with abortion), and with family there may be guilt, anger and bitterness felt by those left behind. To answer your questions of, "Why not make a deal with the sick persons family? If the family say "Ok let my dad or mom die in peacefully," is that patients are denied final stage of growth. Those involved in hospice work often see healing of family relationships and rediscovery of mutual love. Words are spoken that help sustain those left behind. (The Life Resources Charitable Trust 2011). Another issue regarding the legalization of euthanasia is physician ethics. The old proverbial "do no harm." The phrase primum non nocere is greatly cherished by the profession. It is the first "golden rule" that we transmit to our junior colleagues. Another related but less well known phrase, used by medical luminaries such as Thomas Syndenham36 and James Makittrick Adair37 is juvantia et laedenti. It is derived from the Latin verbs iuvo ("help") and laedo ("hurt"). I propose that in our deliberations about euthanasia, we keep in our collective imagination the notion of juvantia et laedentia: "things that [can] help and things that [can] harm." & to go a bit further "A physician's assistance in suicide can indeed be construed as helping the patient: helping in the sense of being an ally in the patient's quest to fulfill personal goals, or helping by buttressing individual autonomy. However, there are also features of such action that can be qualified as harmful: harmful by sowing confusion in trainees about the conceptual core of traditional clinical methods, or harmful by eroding respect for absolute moral values such as "do not kill." (The Permanente Journal, Fall 2011). "Also euthanasia undermines medical excellence: As the Dutch experience reveals, euthanasia doctors tend to be uninterested in palliative care. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia, than learn techniques for caring for the dying." (The Life Resources Charitable Trust, 2011). From Professor David E. Richmond MB ChB MHPEd. MD FRACP FRCP Professor Emeritus David Richmond is a practicing physician in Geriatric Medicine. He was the inaugural Professor of Geriatric Medicine in the University of Auckland, and Assistant Dean in the Auckland Faculty of Medicine. He is a past president of the New Zealand Society for Geriatrics and was a member of the Prime Ministerial Task force on Positive Aging. He assisted with writing the constitution for the Research Ethics Committee at Auckland Hospital, and chaired that committee for its first three years. He was a founding member of the Health Research Council's Ethics Committee. He introduced the teaching of clinical ethics to the Auckland School of Medicine, has taught courses in Bioethics and published several papers on aspects of Medical Ethics. He currently chairs the Board of the HOPE Foundation, a charitable trust dedicated to fostering research into aging and the effects of aging on society: " It is not reasonable to introduce radical legislation on the basis of the perceived needs of a tiny proportion of the population. It is not compassionate to elevate the rights of a small minority over the rights of the majority. It would not be consistent with the nation's stance on capital punishment. Its practice could not be confined within "strict guidelines" as its proponents assert. It introduces a conflict of interest for medical practitioners who will be expected to execute it, and will change the ethos of the health system from preserving life to providing death. The philosophical stance that allows euthanasia to be contemplated at all is flawed and dangerous. It is the wrong solution for the majority of people who might request it. It has the potential to reduce interest in and funding for palliative care and the hospice movement. It does not guarantee a "good death". Legalizing euthanasia gives too much power to the medical profession." (The Life Resources Charitable Trust 2011). Please excuse some of the improper text formatting regarding the quotations. As we know, 4 lines or more are to be indented. I failed to do that because of limited character space.

Euthanasia should be legal My opponent didn"t post an argument for round 2, so I want to add a statistic for my last round and then I"ll summarize all my arguments and elaborate them. My opponent said there should be no reason why we should legalize any kind of suicide, and I said if a person wants to leave this earth he or she will always find a way, so why not legalize euthanasia which is painless. I want to add that in the Netherlands euthanasia is legal. In 1991 they made an examination, and in 86 percent of those who received euthanasia, their life only shortened by a maximum of a week. Those 86 percent had an unbearable agony and just wanted to end their pain immediately. No matter what those persons would die within a week, so why not end their pain immediately if you could? Now I"ll summarize all my arguments and I classify the benefits in two classes for why we should legalize euthanasia. In the one class I"ve the benefits for the one who wants to leave this world and in the other class I"ve the benefits for the dependents and the society. The benefits for those who want to leave this world are that they get a more painless death than otherwise. No one wants to go through a painful death, so why do we let a lot of people go through an unbearable death? Furthermore I think it"s every person"s right to make their own choices, so why do we not let them choose themselves? -Don"t get me wrong, I"m not saying everyone should be able to receive euthanasia! In my opinion a person who already has contracted an incurable disease should for sure be able to receive euthanasia so he or she doesn"t have to go through a painful death. The benefits for the dependents and the society are when euthanasia is legalized fewer commits suicide. No dependents wants to find there husband or a good friend dead in their house, so if euthanasia gets legalized we spare them from this. Furthermore some people who want to commit suicide sometimes crash in a car on purpose and in those cases it can affect other drivers. Maybe a collision happens and maybe innocent people die. This is terrible and no one should die at the expense of others. Furthermore you can see it from an economic point of view. The society will save money if euthanasia is legalized because they don"t have to drive to car accidents and afterwards clean it up. The crashes will also make tailbacks. I wish euthanasia gets legalized so fewer commit suicide and more can leave this world in peace and without pain.

Legalizing Euthanasia Death is final. For people battling illness, one day they may get out of bed and be ready to give up, and the next day they may be prepared to fight. This is just part of the human condition. But legalizing euthanasia would be like giving someone a loaded gun. On a day when they"re depressed or in pain " like when they"ve just received a terminal diagnosis " they may just pull the trigger. First, euthanasia undermines medical research. This is true because one of the major driving forces behind the exceptional medical advances of this century has been incentives to develop treatments for previously fatal illnesses, and the eagerness to alleviate unmanageable symptoms. But when the focus changes from curing the condition to killing the individual with the condition, this whole process is threatened. According to Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins Hospital, "When there is an increasing acceptance of euthanasia and assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, it threatens the very dramatic progress made in the management of these diseases, especially over the last two decades." Rather than being employed to care and console, funds are being diverted to fuel the strategy of 'search and destroy'. Medical research is essential if medicine and other pharmaceutical drugs are to advance further. If euthanasia is legalized, we will suffer a major setback in medical research and technology. Second, doctor predictions are not always accurate and often inconsistent, which can lead to less informed patient decision making in deciding deaths. A study done by the University of Chicago Medical Center found that for the estimated amount of time left to live for terminally ill patients, 20% of doctor predictions were accurate, within 33% of actual survival, 63% of predictions were too optimistic, meaning patients passed away before the predicted date, and 17% of predictions were too pessimistic, meaning patients passed away after the predicted date. Overall, the study reported that doctors overestimate survival by a factor of 5.3. This is important because the whole concept of euthanasia revolves around the patient making the decision to end his or her life, but one cannot make an informed decision without a precise forecast of the time they have left to live. In other words, a prediction that is too optimistic can lead to resentment by patients later on, and a prognosis that is too pessimistic is overwhelming and brutal. Because of the inaccurate lifetime predictions of doctors and damage to medical advances that legalizing euthanasia would create, it is imperative that we do not legalize euthanasia. I ask you to consider the valuable lives of American citizens when you make your decision and vote. Let"s live with dignity.

Euthanasia should be legalised. Euthanasia is only there so that patients have a choice. Euthanasia isn't a solution, it's a relief from pain that the patient can choose if they want to. If they don't want to be euthanized, then they won't (shouldn't) be euthanized. Euthanasia is there if you decide you want to give up. Without euthanasia, patients are unable to give up at all unless they commit suicide, which is illegal (in my country at least). I approve of struggling against painful illnesses or disabilities, but if the patient wants to die in a relatively painless way, then I think they should have that choice too. There is also the case of terminally ill people - people who are almost guaranteed to die anyway. These people may want to choose when they die. Euthanasia in this case can be seen as one rebelling against the illness. Rather than letting the illness destroy and ravage their minds and bodies, and kill them in any random moment, the patient chooses a controlled, peaceful and painless death. As well, many diseases can cause one's form to deteriorate. The end result is that they look unattractive and miserable. To prevent this, people can be euthanized before the illness does so much damage to the body. The euthanized patient will have died in a peaceful state of mind, happy and peaceful, and still looking like a normal person. Euthanasia won't stop innovation in pharmaceuticals. As far as I can tell, NOTHING, will stop innovation in pharmaceuticals. Humans are like that - we don't care if we need to torture animals, or be a bit sneaky with the law - we'll do anything to make the money that can be made. I would also like to make another point. Euthanasia can be good for the patients family and loved ones too. Instead of the patient suddenly dying without notice, the patient's loved ones will know when the death occurs and can be by the person's side when the time comes. This would probably be very beneficial for the patient's mental health. Having a controlled death can also allow one to leave the world without regrets, as they would know exactly when they would die and be able to accomplish and wrap up any unfinished business they have in the world. It's been fun debating with you, this is my first debate I've ever participated in on this site.