Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

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.

Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America

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.

Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide

Should Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide be legalized for the terminally ill that have no chance of recovering? Please answer yes or no.

Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide

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.

Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal

Physicians are suppose to help people not kill them and if they do kill them they should be arrested for murder

Physician assisted suicide should be legal nationwide.

Physician Assisted Suicide or PAS is defined by Merriam Webster as "suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information" Two states, Oregon and Washington have already made this legal. I believe that a terminally ill patient who has undergone psychiatric evaluation and been deemed sane and competent to make their own decisions should legally be able to do so. I would like to debate someone who has an opposing opinion.

Should Physician assisted suicide be legal

Well okay, debating now is going to be difficult because you sort of convinced me, so... I mean I tried to write a rebuttal but I mean, that's difficult now.

Full Resolution: Physician-Assisted-Suicide should be universally legalized in the United States.DefinitionPhysician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS): The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. [1][1] http://www.medterms.com..."Rules"First round is for acceptance only.Last round is for rebuttals/cloing statements only.Obvious other things (no ad hom, etc)If you have any questions or clarifications or whatever, please say so in the comments. Thanks!

Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2)

Rules: BOP will be shared. Both sides need to provide specific evidence supporting their position. Round 3 should be for rebuttals (not constructive! ). If you accept, please use Round 1 to simply state your position (ex: I am arguing for the con side).

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.

Assisted suicide is to be defined as 'the act of accomplishing suicide with the aid of another person. ' Currently, such an act would be viewed by the eyes of the law as murder on the part of the assistant. However, I see no reason as to why, when it has been checked by a medical professional and deemed as acceptable under the circumstances by the same medical professional, it should not be legalized. This, I feel, would negate at least most of the controversies of the debate, as well as negate the arguments that are commonly used to combat the view that euthanasia should be internationally legalised. It was not uncommon, in the realms of History, to hear of doctors bringing about the end of their patients lives to help them avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. It is already legal to allow a person to die of natural causes, for example in the signing of a DNR, when we are able to help them yet recognise their right to die. So why is that different in the case of people who are not imminently suffering from heart attacks or other fast-acting, terminal conditions.

Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional

Full Resolution: Physician-Assisted Suicide (Hereafter reffered to as PAS) under lawful regulations, should be universally legalized.Definition:Physician-Assisted Suicide: The practice of a liscensed physician willingly perscribing a lethal drug at a patient's request for said patient to ingest or otherwise take, effectively ending his/her own life.Rules:There will be 4 rounds:First: Acceptance/any clarifications or additional definitions.Second: Opening arguments (with a rebuttal from Con)Third: More arguments/rebuttals from both sides.Fourth: No more arguments. Closing statements only (With the EXCEPTION of Pro being able to provide a rebuttal for Con's Round 3 argument)To restate what I said, if the Contender has any questions, or wants to add any definitions, you can do that in your acceptance. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to this debate!

Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized

I am happy to accept, and look forward to your opening arguments.

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.

"This is just me, but I would definitely like it if my doctor would go to the fullest to save me, try everything he/she can, not just be like, oh sorry your dying, want me to kill you?" That is not relevant to my definition. I understand the point you're making, but it is unrelated to the debate at hand. You seem to be confusing physician-assisted suicide with euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide is when a physician helps someone commit suicide (see my definition). Euthanasia is the killing of an unconscious (usually terminally ill) patient by a physician, i.e. "pulling the plug". (http://depts.washington.edu...) "just because people in hospitals are pulling the plug, does not mean that people who are crazy are going to stop killing themselves. the two things are not relevant to each other." Generally, people who commit suicide are not crazy. They usually are suffering from severe depression or are experiencing extenuating circumstances. These people are reasonable enough to seek help from a physician. My opponent's contention is definitionally irrelevant, and two of my contentions stand unrefuted.

physician assisted suicide should be legalized

The legalization of euthanasia would be the first step to legalizing homicide. There is no pain great enough to allow for euthanasia. Obviously if someone is in pain or depression they will not think clearly about the value of life. Several icons in America such as Oprah, Matthew McConaughey, and John Adams all went through a period in their life where they had a major depression disorder up to the point of wanting death. If euthanasia was legal, we would of never had these great men/women. Also, from the perspective of the person who helps kill his friend. That could easily be a traumatic experience for them to endure for the rest of their life. The death of their friend, in their hands.

Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised.

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.

but it still should be illegal becaus letting people kill themselves is still wrong

resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized

I accept

In 1997 Oregon passed the death with dignity act. Since then around 750 have taken their lives from perceptions written by doctors. Oregon has safeguards in place to prevent abuse of this law by people who may be suicidal or unable to make this very important decision competently. The physician has to educate the patient on all their possible options including pain management and hospice care. The person must be a resident and deemed mentally competent. The patient must make several requests over a period of time giving them adequate time to consider the decision. Since the law was enacted Washington and Vermont have followed suit alone with British Columbia and Quebec. According to a public health publication the majority of patients who took their lives with the DWDA had baccalaureate degrees or higher and were enrolled in hospice care prior to dying. This means that the patient is educated and has tried other options. The majority of patients concerns with their terminal illness were loss of autonomy. It stands to reason that these patients did not want to be a burden to others or lose the dignity of taking care of themselves. This is a reasonable and sane argument for wanting to take ones own life. http://www.nytimes.com... https://public.health.oregon.gov...

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...;

But the fact of someone wanting to commit suicide with the help of an doctor is just different

I affirm the resolution resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. This is true because when a person is in excruciating plain, on their death bed, should be able to be put out of their misery, and to be with Jesus.

if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, then it will greatly reduce the risk of suicides gone awry" How is this? just because people in hospitals are pulling the plug, does not mean that people who are crazy are going to stop killing themselves. the two things are not relevant to each other. contention one: the physician should try to save there life, not take it away. The physician is there to save the person's life,not to just give up and pull the plug. This is just me, but I would definitely like it if my doctor would go to the fullest to save me, try everything he/she can, not just be like, "oh sorry your dying, want me to kill you?"

I would like to reinforce my statements that for a doctor to kill someone or help them kill themselves, they must go against ethical guidelines, killing someone is never in their best interest, and that a desire to commit suicide is a sign of mental illness. Assisted Suicide is immoral, unethical, and should remain illegal.

Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized.

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.

Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Con and Pro makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Con makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, "No round as argeed upon. " If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling. Since Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicides are the same exact thing the terms and wording may be used interchangably throughout the debate Euthanasia- Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Physician Assisted Suicided- suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide.

Alot of people in the world don't believe in Jesus so they probly wouldn't want to they would probly want to go to the land of 72 virging by going to a place and being a suicide bomber

I argue that Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized. As a Christian, I do believe that Euthanasia is wrong, but I still believe that it should be legal.Definitions: Euthanasia - The painless killing of a patient (at their request) suffering from an incurable and painful disease.Rules for this debate:1. No forfeits2. BoP shared3. No trolling or disrespect4. Con must start his or her opening argument in first round.5. To maintain the same number of rebuttals for both parties, Con must agree not to make any arguments in the final round.6. Pro will provide a closing statement in the final round and not present any new arguments.I look forward for an exciting debate.

Euthanasia should be legalized

I accept.

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.

I negate the resolution, resolved: physician assisted suicide should be legalized. I will let my opponent, whoever that may be, go first.

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.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill

Hmm. It seems my opponent has closed his account. Please extend my arguments.

But still, those people, i'm sure would still want to be put out of excrutiating pain, even if they didn't bilieve in God Or Jesus.

Euthanasia is defined as physical assisted suicide for patients who are in extreme physical pain (judged by the patient). I am willing to debate on the moral stand point as well the legal part of the debate. Questions are encouraged . Good luck to my opponent.

Euthanasia should become Legalized in the US

Well, I'll try. I accept.

As someone in favor of physician assisted suicide, physician assisted death, ie murder, is a horrible idea. Murder is illegal in the U.S, and therefor physician assisted death would be unlawful do to the broad nature of the topic at hand.[1] [1]http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Physician Assisted Death

I negate the resolution resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. This is true because if it was legal in all states a lot of people would be dead just because they don't want to live.

Thanks for the opening argument detectableninja.Duty Of The PhysicianWhat is the duty of a physician?The Hippocratic Oath states this quite well, and is an oath doctors must swear.Here is an excerpt:"I will not prescribe a patient a lethal drug."This states that physicians are not to kill their patients under any circumstances.Harming other's rights?Hypothetical situation- a girl has a PAS.Her family grieves.This is infringing upon the rights of others to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Cost Of Dying 5/6 of US adults have medical insurance, which largely pays for this for them. (1)_=Sources=_http://www.gallup.com...;Sorry if my argument is a bit short, but this is my first debate :I

Yes because that would be more time I could spend with people I love wouldn't u want to do that

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 should be legalized

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.

I extend my arguments again.

Hey lannan, Thank you for extending this debate opportunity to me. I look forward to an intense clash of minds in which all who observe can enjoy. XI: Intro and Definition I would like to begin this debate by making the clear observation that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) is NOT the same as euthanasia. In my own words PAS is self-administered death while euthanasia is the taking of another's life by the actual doctor, with of without their consent. Basically in euthanasia the doctor pulls the trigger (with or without permission by the patient) while in PAS the doctor simply supplies the gun, very different. These quotes will demonstrate what I am saying: "Physician-Assisted Suicide is where patients with a terminal diagnosis (life-limiting disease) formally request a prescription for a fatal dose of a drug which they can administer to themselves at a time of their choosing......It is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying, to treat an unbearable situation, and is legal in two states in the U.S.A. (Oregon [Death with Dignity Act 1994] and Washington [2009]), and in Europe in The Netherlands." "Euthanasia is when a physician or other healthcare provider does something, such as administering a known lethal dose of a drug, to deliberately kill a patient, with or without the patient’s consent. It is not legal anywhere in the U.S.A." ~http://comfortcarechoices.com... "Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy killing")."~Wiki: Assisted Suicide XII: PAS is Safe and is fairly common in other countries Many people have misconceptions about physician assisted suicide. PAS is a very safe practice, Countries which allow PAS include: Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Canada. In the U.S. these states allow PAS currently: Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Montana and Vermont. ~Wiki: Assisted Suicide. Another fear many people have about PAS is that it is unsafe and leads to family members forcing others to engage in PAS for personal gain such as inheritance. This would be a major concern if it were not for the reasonability of legislation and the opposition to PAS. What I mean by that is, the fact opposition brings attention to the possibility of abuse, special measures are taken to implement especially safe laws. Here is a sample of the legal process to apply and receive PAS: "Several safeguards in Death with Dignity laws ensure all patients are protected, and if they wish to use the law, they're in full control of the process. These safeguards and the request process ensure there's no chance patients are coerced to hasten their deaths. The terminally ill patient: verbally requests the medication from the physician twice; each request is separated by 15 days. make a written request to the attending physician; the request is witnessed by two individuals who are not primary care givers or family members. can rescind the verbal and written requests at any time. must be able to self-administer and ingest the prescribed medication. The law further requires... The attending physician must be licensed in the same state as the patient. The physician's diagnosis must include a terminal illness, with six months or less to live. The diagnosis must be certified by a consulting physician, who must also certify that the patient is mentally competent to make and communicate health care decisions. If either physician determines that the patient's judgment is impaired, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination. The attending physician must inform the patient of alternatives, including palliative care, hospice and pain management options. The attending physician must request that the patient notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. Use of the law cannot affect the status of a patient's health or life insurance policies. The states' departments of health enforce compliance with the law. Compliance requires physicians to report all prescriptions to the state. Physicians and patients who comply with the law are protected from criminal prosecution. Physicians and health care systems are not obligated to participate in the Death with Dignity laws." ~ See more at: http://www.deathwithdignity.org... XIII: The Moral Reason Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal Beyond any facts I have presented I must state the moral reason for which PAS should be allowed, ultimately it comes down to the fact that people who suffer never-endingly, deserve the right to control their own life and as has been said, "Die with Dignity". People who oppose PAS often make arguments which are quite contradictory to the way in which we are supposed to treat others in the U.S.. One I often hear is, 'we cannot play god', to which I must respond, "Which one?". Not everyone believes in the same god and some lack such a concept. by rejecting the idea of PAS using this logic, are you not imposing your religious beliefs on others and is this not against the way in which we are supposed to operate in the U.S. concerning religion? I find it wrong that people who have never experienced excruciating and continual pain, force their beliefs on those who on a daily basis do. It is very egotistical to believe that you know more than an 'expert' in pain, in essence. So these people who have never experienced such pain prevent laws from being passed which would free people from the prison of their body. A person who is burning in a fire will experience pain so vast that it is incomprehensible, and it should be absolutely morally irreprehensible to allow the continuation of such pain; what deprives one of their right to pursue happiness than something like that? Please let me be clear, if such pain occurs for just a moment, then of course they should not be allowed to end their life. And if this pain is psychological and caused by depression, then of course they should not be permitted to end their life in this name, however it is when this suffering is permanent that we must disallow its continuation. Doing otherwise should be considered a crime, not vice vera. Thanks you for reading and considering, I end my opening statement.

I extend my arguments.

People that are terminally ill should try to enjoy the last portion of their lives instead of deliberately ending it. Euthanasia is assisted murder and the doctors should be charged with said crime. The doctor took a Hippocratic oath to help their patients and to try to ease them into the unfortunate moment of them dying, not being the cause of said death. Who knows, before the person dies of the disease they are trying to avoid dying from by killing themselves, they may come out with a cure. That is my stance

Euthanasia should be legal

I would want my family knowing i was leaving hapy(ish) rather than painfully and sad.

Suicide is a grave sin equivalent to murder (Exodus 20:13; 21:23). So this means that you are also supporting murder.

this house believes that assisted suicide for the terminally ill should be made legal

So if you were dying a very slow, painful death, you would want to live it?

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!

My opponent makes no argument for why we should favor his interpretation of the right to life over my interpretation. My argument was dropped, so we must assume that the right to life only includes the right to keep your life, and not the right to do with it whatever you wish. However, despite my thoughts on the right to life, I believe that assisted suicide should be legal. Not because it would fulfill a right, but because it would reduce unnecessary suffering to those who will inevitably die without any reasonable chance of recovery or at least any remaining time without pain. Doctors should not kill their patients, and my arguments supporting that were dropped. Pro gives no reason as to why Euthanasia should be legalized that is unique to his plan over my counter plan (assisted suicide), and I have shown that his plan presents disadvantages that mine does not have. Therefore, you must negate.

Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America

California is looking to legalize physician assisted suicide ,with a bill much resembling Oregon"s own. Introduced by senators Wolk and Monning January,20,2015,They call it the End of Life Act Option. Section 443 states "This bill would enact the End of Life Act Option authorizing and adult who meets certain qualifications, and who has been determined by his or her attending physician to be suffering from a terminal illness, as defined, to make a request for medication prescribed pursuant to these provisions for the purpose of ending his or her life."This bill is giving a individual of the age of 18 the option to commit suicide through a attending physician. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov... Its extremely hard for anyone to accept the loss of a loved one, whether they"re a child they raised or a sister they grew up with. Yet they call physician assisted suicide a "just, and dignified death."But as the battle of what"s right and what"s wrong continues, more citizens of the U.S would prefer having the ones they love for a few more days, a few more minutes, or even a few more seconds than losing them forever without a chance to even say goodbye.

should California legalize physician assisted suicide

Thanks for your answer, Yerkezhan. I agree with you, that the pain might be intolerable, however, modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but society"s role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition.

Assisted suicide should be legalized

Arguments extended. Thank you for this debate.

To conclude, I will summarize my arguments. First, I stated that PAS does not disproportionally affect vulnerable groups. As a result, there is little to no difference in the individuals who recieve and ultimately end up taking life-ending medications and the general public. Second, I argued that adequate screening for mental illness prevents the misuse of PAS. Onocologists and physicians dealing with terminally ill patients that request PAS need to be trained in the recognition of mental illness in those with life-threatening illnesses. This not only improves the quality of life for the patient, it also ensures that those recieving life-ending medications are making rational and informed decisions. Finally, I showed that despite the legalization of PAS, the number of people taking life-ending medications recieved under PAS remains very low.

I think that for the overall success of this debate and for the comprehension of it by the readers, we should begin confident of what all terminology and related terminology mean, some of which haven't yet been covered. So let me take some time to explain the bigger picture. Let's start with regular euthanasia (EUTH); EUTH is most accurately described as the taking of another's life by a doctor in order to relieve them of their chronic and terminal pains or future mental degradation. Very extreme forms of EUTH existed in the Nazi regime, where the societal unproductive, disabled in mind or body, and those of a specific race or cultural background were 'euthanized' aka murdered. The main idea being that these people are deficient and not worthy of life. The normal form of EUTH is of course much, much less extreme, usually it is simply a doctor injecting a patient with a lethal drug or cutting of their life support. Here is where euthanasia splits into 2 different divisions. A, is active/ involuntary euthanasia where the doctor does not have any specific permission from the one being euthanized, it comes from other sources whether it be family, or Nazi regime in the past. In this case, the doctor would do something like inject the patient with a lethal drug.The second division of EUTH, B, is passive/voluntary EUTH; where the patient specifically asks the doctor to end their life and under no other party's directive. The doctor will then: pull the plug on life support/ stop giving them medicine/ let the disease take its course.Now we come to Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), This is where the patient explicitly asks the doctor to give them: medicine, injection...etc. which they will then inject/breath through mask/drink...etc., specifically with the patient doing the action which ends their life. I will defend that PAS is: very passive euthanasia. I believe so because in regular passive EUTH the patient doesn't even pull their own cord, it is the doctor. So in PAS all the doctor does is give them the ability to pull their own cord, which I think is better, because it gives them much more control....Keep in mind that right now, if a family member wishes, they can pull the plug on say a dying father on his last limb in the hospital. This is true in ALL U.S. states. What is really the difference between PAS and puling the plug? Americans generally support the right to physician-assisted suicide, though the number varies depending on how the issue is framed. As of 2013 it was as high as 71% when the phrase "end the patient's life by some painless means" was used. That dropped to 51% when the phrase "commit suicide" was introduced.But what about the physicians themselves?According to a survey published Dec. 17 by Medscape, an online professional network and information source for physicians, 54% of doctors answered the question, "Should physician-assisted suicide be allowed?" with a yes. click="document.location='/TheJuniorVarsityNovice/photos/album/4636/30510/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/5/4636/226693-4636-e89c3-a.jpg" alt="" /> For this survey, Medscape asked more than 21,000 physicians a list of ethical questions. More than 17,000 of them were US doctors, while 4,000 European physicians responded.Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...In contention 1 my opponent gives us a truck load of facts, however even though he calls them "horrible" he never says why. He wants viewers to assume: A, that these people were simply murdered which is expressly untrue, and B, that this indicates a s but beyond that he has not provided evidence to support this suggested assumption so please do no consider this until it is properly warranted and explained. Also his source for this was labeled as an error which should be in the "opinions sections" of the website: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... In contention 2 my opponent states that passing laws allowing any form of EUTH leads to massive and involuntary euthanasia however I would actually classify this claim under the Slippery-Slope fallacy because there have only been facts presented thus far, yet these facts alone do not indicate that passive EUTH has lead to involuntary EUTH; he may have stated that but that doesn't make it true. For instance he stated that strict laws were passed supported by medical associations in 1987 and less so in 2001. These are neat facts but that's is all they are, they don't imply actual cause and effect. Please remember that Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary proof! click="document.location='/TheJuniorVarsityNovice/photos/album/4636/30510/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/5/4636/226693-4636-u9ags-a.jpg" alt="" /> In contention 3 my opponent basically states that the sickly just need to take ownership and get over their pain. I state that most people who are terminally ill aren't irrational they are simply regular people who are in constant and unbearable pain, with thoughts still intact. Please provide evidence stating that all people who are chronically ill are irrational, only then can we accept contention 3.Here are quotes which attack statements and assumptions made during the last round:"There is no evidence demonstrating that the Netherlands has a greater rate of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia than other Western countries. Indeed, there is a significant amount of evidence demonstrating the prevalence of both voluntary and involuntary active euthanasia in various jurisdictions in which euthanasia has not been legalized, looking at criminal prosecutions, admissions by doctors and anonymous surveys of medical professionals." -Penney Lewis, LLM, Reader in Law at the School of Law and Centre of Medical Ethics at Kings College, stated in a Spring 2007 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: article titled "The Empirical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia"Basically there is evidence that the percent of involuntary EUTH is less is the same in countries without legislation on the matter and as will be shown next, the legislation has actually decreased the amount of involuntary EUTH"look to the Netherlands, where they’ve had progressive laws on assisted dying for over a decade now. 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. You might argue that that’s 0.4 percent too many, but get this: A 1991 report—written a decade before euthanasia was legalized—put the number at 0.8 percent. In other words, giving a nationwide go-ahead for doctors to legally end their patient’s lives actually halved the number of unwanted deaths. But hey, that’s just Holland, right? They do things differently there. Doctors in a less-hippie-liberal culture would never kill off patients without their consent, right? Well think again. In Britain, a 2012 study discovered that as many as 57,000 patients each year die without being told that efforts to keep them alive have been stopped. Instead, they’re just shoved onto a “death pathway” designed to alleviate suffering without ever being told. So basically, doctors in the UK are already practicing euthanasia—only without any of the legal framework to check abuses that would come from legalizing it." -http://listverse.com..."In 2005, of all deaths in the Netherlands, 1.7% were the result of euthanasia and 0.1% were the result of physician-assisted suicide. These percentages were significantly lower than those in 2001, when 2.6% of all deaths resulted from euthanasia and 0.2% from assisted suicide." -Agnes van der Heide, MD, PhD, Senior Researcher in the Department of Public Health at Erasmus University As far as the Hyppocratic Oath, the problem arises when "Do no harm" is said, however it does more harm to let live in these cases

Attempting suicide is against the law. Since euthanasia is painless suicide, then it is illegal. There should be no reason why we legalize painless suicide but not painful, convenient, or other methods of suicide.

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.

I doubt that everyone in America will, and does want to kill them selves, and its not like they are commuting suicide just because they hate their lives, its because there is no chance that they are going to live and they are in pain and want to just speed the process up. Imagine you have cancer, and your going threw Kim and your losing your hair, and the cancer is spreading through out your body and your having lots of surgery, but there is nothing that the doctors can do and your in really bad pain, would you want to be like that for a couple more months or even years, or would you like to go and be in heaven with Jesus?

I do not see how my argument is not relevant to the debate. And people who have a mental illness causing them to commit suicide are crazy, you'd have to be crazy to want to kill yourself. Second I was talking about physician assisted suicide, I was just using the term "pulling the plug" lightly.

There is one very simple problem with your position. The Hippocratic oath, by which all medicine in this country is practiced, strictly and definitively forbids it. In order to legalize physician assisted suicide you would literally have to re-write the basic code by which all physicians are bound. You argue that morality has no place in medicine, while the exact opposite is true. There is no medicine without morality, else all doctors would be little more than snake oil salesmen. Morality is required as a basic code of being a physician moreso than any other profession save for a preacher. Let's visit your theory for just a moment and assume it should be legal. On what basis or code should the doctor be bound by while making the determination of which patients to "help" in this manner? Should it be the Kevorkian method, that is whatever the physician himself believes? Should there be a set of guidelines on when it's acceptable and when it's not? Should it be required to get a second opinion from a consulting physician? How about from a psychologist? Do the ramifications of a suicide on family, particularly dependents, get taken into account? What about the clause in most life insurance policies that explicitly state they don't pay upon suicide? It's clear that some shysters masquerading as caring physicians would quickly take advantage of such a situation for the sake of profit rather than mercy. That is to say, if the first 5 docs say no, you don't qualify, the 6th one will say sure, but not until after the check clears. He'll likely have on staff equally immoral folk with necessary degrees to back him up. I am quite certain that Mr. Kevorkian eloquently stated his position on the matter and he obviously swayed you to his way of thinking, however when one looks at the situation through more than his very narrow viewpoint, it becomes quite obvious there are many obstacles that Jack doesn't adequately address on his lecture tour.

Euthanasia, assisted suicide, should be legal in all 50 states.

Human euthanasia is viable option for palliative care

Looking forward to the debate.

No Round, As Required in The Terms of Agreement.

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?

Euthanasia should be legal

I being pro will argue for this. Let us define this (1)Assisted suicide is "Suicide accomplished with the aid of another person, especially a physician." Round 1: is accepting the debate. Round 2: Build your case. No rebuttals Round 3: Confrontation, No new points shall be made. Offer rebuttals to your opponents case while establishing a closing statement. Any new points made other than ones that reestablish a previous point will result in loss of conduct points

Assisted suicide should be legalized

Thank you for your concession. I'm still going to present my opening arguments anyway, mostly to save them for another debate. ==Opening Arguments== I would like to thank my opponent for providing his opening arguments. As a pre-med student, this is one issue that I care very deeply about. I am strongly opposed to any form of PAS or euthanasia. I’m looking forward to an excellent exchange. Observations This debate centers around PAS/Euthanasia. We need to understand that the two are not mutually exclusive and they are not synonyms for each other. Although the end goal is the same (death), the procedure is much different. Euthanasia is usually defined as an intentional act undertaken by the physician that intentionally ends the life of a person at his/her request. PAS, on the other hand, a person self-administers a lethal substance provided by the physician (1). Although these differences appear to be moot and non-consequential, they both have a differing set of ethical questions. For purposes of this particular debate, however, it appears that both of them are being treated as synonyms. Therefore, pro will have to show that both PAS and euthanasia should be legalized. I will, however, attempt to negate the resolution by showing that both PAS and euthanasia should not be legalized under any circumstances. Framework My framework will be centered around medical ethics and the harms that legalizing PAS or euthanasia will cause to the medical profession. Legalizing PAS or euthanasia would greatly harm the medical profession and violates the rights and dignity of patients. Corruption of Medicine Legalized PAS would forever change the culture and purpose in which medicine is practiced. Legalization of PAS would corrupt medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used for killing. Furthermore, it distorts the physician-patient relationship, and could eventually lead to forced euthanasia. Finally, the risks of misdiagnosis among terminally ill patients are far too great to allow a physician to determine who should live and who should die.The bedrock to medical ethics is the Hippocratic Oath (more on this in the next round) which states: “I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anyone who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” (2) This is the foundation of medicine. As doctors, we have the responsibility to treat our patients and stay on the side of life. Legalizing PAS would greatly undermine the first roll that a doctor has. Misdiagnosis PAS is seen as a merciful way out for the terminally ill. Under current law in Oregon and other places, the terminally ill can request PAS if they have been given less than 6 months to live. Unfortunately, misdiagnosis among the terminally ill is not uncommon. According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, medical errors, when added up, may be the third leading cause of death (3). Joseph Perkins asks, “How many of those patients, depressed by the prospect of imminent death, might ask a doctor to prescribe them lethal medication so that they can end their lives, as euthanasia proponents euphemistically put it, ‘on their own terms’?” (4)Distorting the Physician-Patient Relationship As noted by Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, PhD.: “PAS changes the culture in which medicine is practiced. It corrupts the profession of medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used as techniques for killing. By the same token, PAS threatens to fundamentally distort the doctor–patient relationship because it reduces patients’ trust of doctors and doctors’ undivided commitment to the life and health of their patients.” (5) The Duty to Die When does the right to die become the duty to die? Although the laws put safeguards in place to prevent forced PAS, no guarantee is made that it won’t occur and the safeguards are woefully inefficient. Because it is cheaper to kill a patient rather than treat one, insurance companies will be incentivized to cover medication of PAS rather than keep them covered long-term. This happened in 2008 to Barbra Wagner as CNN reports: “In 2008, came the story that Barbara Wagner, a Springfield, Oregon, woman diagnosed with lung cancer and prescribed a chemotherapy drug by her personal physician, had reportedly received a letter from the Oregon Health Plan stating that her chemotherapy treatment would not be covered. She said she was told that instead, they would pay for, among other things, her assisted suicide.” (7) The slippery slope is real and quite alarming. J. Pereria et al. noted that In Belgium, non-voluntary euthanasia (that is, without explicit consent of the patient) is 3 times higher than the Netherlands and accounts for more than 1% of all euthanasia. Their study concluded: “In 30 years, the Netherlands has moved from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill, to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill; from euthanasia for physical illness, to euthanasia for mental illness; from euthanasia for mental illness, to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering—and now to euthanasia simply if a person is over the age of 70 and “tired of living.” Dutch euthanasia protocols have also moved from conscious patients providing explicit consent, to unconscious patients unable to provide consent. Denying euthanasia or pas in the Netherlands is now considered a form of discrimination against people with chronic illness, whether the illness be physical or psychological, because those people will be forced to “suffer” longer than those who are terminally ill. Non-voluntary euthanasia is now being justified by appealing to the social duty of citizens and the ethical pillar of beneficence.” (7) This is certainly undesirable and has no place in medicine. Conclusion The great harm that it would cause to the medical profession cannot be overstated. Doctors must remain on the side of life and actively work to preserve life, not take it away. Moreover, the risk of misdiagnosis is far too great to risk terminating life prematurely. Instead of encouraging death, we must work to improve end-of-life care. The resolution is soundly negated. 1. http://www.medscape.com......2. http://guides.library.jhu.edu......3. http://qualitysafety.bmj.com......4. http://www.ocregister.com......5. http://www.heritage.org......6. http://www.cnn.com......7. Pereira, J. “Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and Controls.” Current Oncology 18.2 (2011): e38–e45. Print.

Assisted Suicide

I agreed not to make arguments in this round, so I'm limiting myself to some summary and a couple clarifications. Clarification: I argued "assisted suicide" because of a misunderstanding. I thought Pro was arguing only for euthanasia, because the title doesn't say anything about "assisted suicide. " After I realized the mistake, I dropped "assisted suicide" entirely. I switched gears to arguing against it. There's ambiguity about what the resolution is -- is it solely about euthanasia or does it include assisted suicide? This was unclear so I dropped assisted suicide. For purposes of this debate, then, I argue against assisted suicide. All of my contentions apply both to euthanasia and assisted suicide. I want to clarify that my arguments are aimed at both, because Pro mistakenly thinks I support assisted suicide. Don't punish me for Pro's misunderstanding. Summary: Euthanasia gives doctors the right to kill terminally ill patients. I argued based on that fact that euthanasia undermines equality, corrupts doctors, deprives suicide of meaning, and leads down a slope to involuntary euthanasia. I gave two alternatives: the status quo, where things remain as they are now, with euthanasia illegal, and my other option that we make deadly drugs available. Pro's arguments are that euthanasia improves autonomy and saves money. I argued that this isn't true, and I argued that my proposal for deadly drugs does those things better -- autonomy and costs -- while not falling prey to any of the harms of euthanasia. Thanks for the debate.

Euthanasia should be legalized

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...

I just have a couple of issues with your last argument and I'll leave it at that. -By definition anyone with a doctorate is a doctor. But even limiting the decisions to licensed physicians in no way, shape, or form is adequate. There is quite a difference between an E.R. Doc and and oncologist, for example. -The process IS arbitrary as long as there isn't a vetting process that would have to include a team of specialists all agreeing. A patient is only "terminal" when a doctor says so. Another Doc with the same exact training might disagree, a Doc with more specific training very often would. -Doctor shopping for purpose of getting a 2nd opinion is completely legal. In this case the patient would simply get as many opinions as necessary until he gets the one he wants. -The majority of cases where patients pull out of their illness aren't miraculous recovery, they are usually mis-diagnosis in the first place. The amount of cancer patients who are incorrectly told they are terminal is greater than you apparently realize, for example. I was a training coordinator in a major hospital for 4 years. Doctors incorrectly diagnosing patients and over or under estimating the severity of their illness is very common. It would probably appall you the number of "medical" decisions that are made based on insurance coverage rather than best care of the patient. Expanding this out to doctors making decisions such as assisted suicide is a slippery slope best not navigated.

I am a pro for the argument, let us define the point. (1) Assisted suicide is defined as: The suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. Round one will be accepting the debate Round two will be building the arguments. No rebuttals. Round three will rebuttal . No new evidence will be brought to the table at this phase. Confront each other

The legalization of assisted suicide.

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.

Alright, lets get started! Topic 1- Physician assisted suicide should be legalized in the United States: I am PRO Topic 2- Water borading is a justified method of interrogation for terrorists: I am PRO Topic 3- The Bible supports Young Earth Creationism (YEC): I am PRO Good luck.

Pick your own debate - 1E

that is the damn problem with countries that go awry. ohh, lets not hurt my feelings while i ask absurd questions and provoke negative thoughts. little boy, it is a free for all and i am not in bounds and shackles. but the way america is going down the tubes...we will be soon,. in a world of no moral conscience or value to life. then yeah by all means..kill each other. kill yourself kill everyone. God is part of my answer and assisting someone is murder according to the logical and sane decrees of the ten commandments,.. i answered your question. i didnt give you a recipe for grandmas chocolate chip cookies, i gave you a blunt answer. people cannot take the truth. i said it would leave many consequences. the consequences are not worth it therefor i would be against assisted suicide. oh i am also against legal marijuana. its just another lame excuse to bring decay into society. you can be honest with yourself and look at the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana and there you will see how one bad idea leads to an entire chain of bad ideas. not to mention the health problems and psychological problems marijuana causes compared to giving a sick person an appetite. its the same thing when ever you bring something unatural into life you will get unatural effects. its not even a question. i will answer how ever i choose, i am not in chains or bounds. i am free and fed up with moral decay. sue me.

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.

Euthanasia should be legalised

Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help

assisted suicide should be legalized

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

Some of my opponent's arguments do not link to his conclusion. When someone is given the right to life, that means that the government outlaws murder, and punishes those who infringe on the right. This has nothing to do with the right to do with it whatever they want. With Pro's interpretation of this right, anyone including depressed teenagers and the like, are allowed to commit suicide, even when it would clearly harm society for them to do so.My opponent's sole valid point is basically this: that those who want a way out from their pain should have it by killing them, which is a merciful thing to do. However, I also agree that patients should have the right to die in this circumstance, with assisted suicide. This would achieve the same upsides, without the downsides of the doctor outright killing the patient.With the doctor killing the patient, doctors are given power that may be abused. For example, when it would benefit the doctor, the doctor could fake consent, among other things. Assisted suicide achieves the same upsides, without the ethical downsides of euthanasia.

Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America

I shall debate you on the topic of assisted suicide. I believe not only that Assisted is not moral right but if allowed, doctors would have the power to take human life away when someone very ill could not be the right state of clarity or mind. Just because a pactient is ill now, doesn't mean that all hope of finding what the illness that person has is impossible and so that doesn't mean a doctor should have the power away life just because hope is small or even lost. In all, assisted suicide is wrong not just morally, but it can allow a doctors or nurses to undermine the right to life just because at that moment the ill person in that moment what's to die.

Assisted suicide should be legalized

Debate starts next round

It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused

assisted suicide should be legalized

First off I just want to clarify what assisted suicide means for my opponent. "Assisted suicide occurs when a physician provides a patient with the means of ending his or her life—usually a prescription for a fatal dose of drugs. The patient takes the drugs independently of the doctor. This procedure differs from euthanasia, in which the doctor administers the fatal dose or performs some other act, such as a lethal injection, that ends the patient's life." (1) That being said it is also illegal in every state within the U.S. besides Oregon and Washington. (2) I propose a change to this and make it legal in every state. Who are we to say a patient must suffer until his final breath is taken? We can condemn a man to a death sentence but we will not let him chose his own? If in fact the principals this country was founded on are still upheld today (which, in some perspectives it doesn't seem to be so) then we should have the free will to chose when enough is enough. Don't get me wrong I believe there should be some requirements put on it however I will go into farther detail once my opponent has a chance to make his argument. I wish good luck to us both. (1) http://socialissues.wiseto.com... (2) http://www.lifesitenews.com...

Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized.

one of the ten commandments says: thou shalt not murder. Assisted suicide is murder. assisted suicide assisted pedophilia assisted bank robbery whats the difference? they are all causing another person to commit a crime. that sounds like a really sneaky way to bring someone else down with you. and then what, after the doctor goes on living or familiy on or the lovers or the friends and children and parents go on in life after realizing they just killed someone, who is going to help them? can you imagine the guilt and issues they will face and the regret? or are you cold and stupid? if someone is on the verge of death then let em go..they will die. if someone is on life support. i dont think taking someone off life support counts as murder being that it is a machine doing all the living for the patient and its apparent they arent waking up and that they are clinically brain dead..it l depends though. but some selfish ungreatful prick asking u to kill him so he can be free while he leaves u with all the guilt and confusion and consequences and pain can just suffer and wait like the rest of us who are struggling in life. i dont think so...if they want to commit suicide...let them do it them selves. thats the whole point. other wise...its just murder. so is abortion by the way.

Just a quick note to the readers and voters that this debate is for the DDO Olympics hosted by bsh1. Full ResolutionResolved: That physician assisted suicide should be legalized. Good luck and may the best arguments win.

Assisted Suicide

Have you committed suicide already assisted by a doctor?:D

should euthanasia be legalized

In your argument you are suggesting assisted suicide. By your opening sentence " Euthanasia should be legal for anyone who no longer desires to live..." According to afsp.org 494,169 people visit the hospital a year for self harm and suicide attempts. By allowing people to have the option to euthanize themselves you are giving them an easy way out. When people are rendered incapable of taking care of themselves they are given a proxy, a family member or friend, that is able to chose what happens to them.

Should euthanasia be legal

i so like Dr.Kevorkian who help to kill over 100 people

Human Euthanasia is currently only legal in three states; Oregon, Montana, and Washington. It should be legal in every state. It is a morally sound practice that should be legal in every state. When pain and suffering makes it so that life is no longer worth living, it should be a choice that has been taken into careful consideration but ultimately available to all. Regulated as any medical procedure it, the ability to choose a peaceful death with the love and care of your family around you should be available to all. It says in our constitution that the government will secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves. It is our liberty to choose whether we may end our lives on a note of horrible pain, drug induced-comatose status, or one surrounded by family and able to say goodbye to those we love. Therefore Euthanasia for the Human man or woman is legally and morally sound.

Human euthanasia should be legal because it is morally and constitutionally sound.

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.

Legalizing euthanasia would allow more open family dialogue on the choice.

Good luck to you as well. Assisted suicide is an extremely delicate issue. On one side, there is the argument that my opponent has put forward, saying that a person should be allowed to choose when they die, in other words, that it is an issue of freedom. However, I propose that it is instead an issue of curing those who suffer, rather than simply allowing them to kill themselves. This belief is based on three concepts. First is the concept that one of the rules a physician should follow is "Primum non nocere" (First, not to harm). (http://en.wikipedia.org...). A doctor is morally and ethically obligated to do his best to help his patient, even if it goes against the patient's wishes. By intentionally giving a person (patient is not really the correct term when the doctor is helping them kill themselves) drugs for the sole purpose of ending that person's life is a violation of the doctor's integrity. Second, suicide is a symptom of mental illness. Over 90% of those who commit suicide have a psychiatric diagnosis at the time of death (World Psychiatric Association http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...). The desire to commit suicide could actually be considered a mental disorder in and of itself, as it displays a violation of the survival instinct. These people need help to fight their problems, not help to kill themselves. If it was legal for a physician to help people commit suicide, people who were contemplating it would be more likely to follow through, since the drugs would be quick and painless, as opposed to other methods a person might use. Finally, suicide has many inherent ethical issues. Augustine pointed out in The City of God (I believe, I can't find my copy of it, so it may be in Confessions) that when someone kills themselves, they are committing murder. Specifically, he refers to a woman idolized in Roman tradition who had been raped, then committed suicide because she couldn't live with the shame. Everyone referred to her as innocent. However, Augustine raised the point that she had therefore killed an innocent woman. Intentionally killing an innocent person is, by definition, murder. Therefore, suicide is not a freedom, but rather a crime or a symptom of illness. As such, it is a doctor's duty to prevent suicide, rather than assisting it. If anything, we should strengthen the penalties for physician assisted suicide, rather than removing them.

Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized.

You make a valid point, but the right to life means the right to their life. They can do whatever they choose to with their life. By denying them the opportunity for a way out, you are being cruel. Assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legal.

Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America

In conclusion, because everyone has a right to their own body, everyone has the right to suicide, regardless of the approval of anyone else. It shouldn't be contingent upon illness, for doctors do not have the authority to decide whether someone should live his life.

Euthanasia should be legalized but with requirements

"I do not see how my argument is not relevant to the debate. " If someone chooses to die, it is their choice. The physician has no right to try to stop them. The person does not need saving. The person just wants to die. "And people who have a mental illness causing them to commit suicide are crazy, you'd have to be crazy to want to kill yourself. " Not necessarily. Their life could be in extenuating circumstances. They could be severely depressed. Neither of these cases can be called crazy. "Second I was talking about physician assisted suicide, I was just using the term "pulling the plug" lightly. " That's all right with me. My opponent's contention is still definitionally irrelevant, though. That's the main problem. *** Two of my contentions stand unrefuted, and my opponent has done an inadequate job of attacking my other contention. My opponent's contention is definitionally irrelevant. By offering virtually no rebuttals in round 3, my opponent has essentially conceded.

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)

Physician assisted suicide (Euthanasia)

Ok so I believe that assisted suicide should be legal. I am open to debate.

Assisted Suicide.

Now, when talking about the idea of Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS), there are some points I’d like to make in regards to PAS. Duty of the Physician A physician’s duty to his/her patients is simple: to relieve (as much as possible) his/her patient’s suffering, as well as preserve the dignity of said patient [1]. If a person with a terminal and painful illness is barely mobile, cannot feed his/herself, but can request to be assisted in suicide by a physician, and the physician refuses due to it being unlawful, then his/her duty isn’t being met. The patient is clearly suffering to some capacity (even with pain medication, psychological anguish is present), as well as being robbed of his/her dignity, having to lie in a bed, as others must do things for him/her. Rights of the Patient Any person, whether a medical patient or not, owns his/her body, as well as life. Therefore, he/she also has the right to do with his/her body and life as he/she fits. This is why people have the right to be taken off life support when in a vegetative state. And, when one requests a PAS, they are requesting something very similar. After all, what else is he/she doing besides making a firm decision having to do with his/her own life. Therefore, if his/her decision does not impact or violate the rights of another person, then he/she should be able to legally have that right. Let’s go back to the analogy I used previously. This patient, (provided that his/her decision hasn’t been influenced by anything other than his/her own personal judgment), when requesting a PAS, should, naturally, be allowed to have his/her request be able to be accepted, without fear of legal consequences, because his/her own decision is not harming anyone else’s rights. Cost of Dying Whatever way one looks at it, dying costs money. In fact, a person in Miami will be spending around $23,000 on medical bills in the last six months of his/her life [2]. This cost is for dying without the use of PAS. However, a person, using PAS, would only spend approximately $10,000 (in 1995 dollars) on medical bills [3]. I’d like you to think about that. If a person chooses to have a PAS, this would mean that his/her surviving relatives would have about $13,000 that they didn’t before to put toward a funeral (a traditional funeral ranges from $7,000 to over $10,000 [4]), or other debts that may need to be paid. Once more, I’d like to go back to my hypothetical. Let’s say that this patient who wishes to have a PAS, may have un-wealthy relatives, or he/she may be un-wealthy. Not only is he/she suffering, but he/she is also paying quite a bit of medical bills to be kept alive, especially when he/she doesn’t wish to be in the first place. So, given the opportunity to choose, not only would he/he be relieving his/herself of suffering, but also saving money for his/her relatives or beneficiaries as well. Summary So, to summarize my opening argument, here’s a simple wrap-up: (P1) A physician’s duty is to relieve suffering and preserve dignity. (P2) A patient has the right to do with his/her life and body as he/she sees fit. (P3) The costs of a PAS are about half the costs of conventional treatment. ( C ) A patient should be allowed to legally request, and eventually have, a PAS. References [1] . http://endoflife.northwestern.edu... [2] . http://www.usatoday.com... [3] . http://www.nejm.org... [4] . http://www.funeralswithlove.com... Thank you, and I look forward to Con’s opening argument/rebuttal.

In reply to the arguments that you made against my original argument, it is perfectly acceptable to use my beliefs as an argument. I will now explain why for multiple reasons: 1) in order for this to be legalized it would have to be voted on by the government (state or federal) or the people of each state. Therefore the personal beliefs of all individuals voting would come into account. 2) in the hypothetical situation that doctor assisted suicide is legalized on a country wide scale, the beliefs of the doctor who prescribes the medication to legally commit suicide would come into play because ultimately it is there decision. They are the one who signs the prescription. They can turn down a request for medication to commit suicide. The argument on the Hippocratic Oath was not a belief In a new argument I would like to bring into account that most physicians find it unacceptable as well. 75% of doctors polled in 2012 found PAS unacceptable **Same resource as before**

Doctor Assisted Suicide

At the core of a legalized physician assisted suicide (PAS) system is the principal that medical ethics should be governed and regulated by the professionals instead of lawmakers. A PAS system puts the expertise of the doctor and the experience of the patient at the forefront of the issue and views both perspectives rightly as the most credible in a given situation. The law cannot adapt to the specificity and multitude of ethical problems that arise on a situational basis. The law can only take into account circumstances that it foresees and can elaborate on. The highly personal and situational nature of this issue deems it insufficient for legislation, which exists outside the realm of the personal. The foundation of medical ethics relies upon the understanding of the consent (when applicable) of the patient to the procedure and the discretion, judgment, and experience of the medical profession to whom the patient has entrusted their care. The basis of good and ethical health and health systems relies upon the integrity of this. [[http://www.ur.umich.edu/9697/May20_97/artcl10.htm]]

The relationship between Law and Medical Ethics

For those who do not know, Euthanasia is also recognised as assisted suicide or medical suicide. It is the act of ending a life, If the person requests it, To relieve pain and suffering. I am for euthanasia. I believe that people should have the right to decide when their own life should end. It should only be done by medical professionals in a hospital setting, It goes without saying. Why should people have to live in pain? That is no life. Whose family wants to watch them suffer? You should be allowed peace. As long as you are mentally assessed and proven to be mentally stable and capable, You should be allowed to make this decision.

Euthanasia