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

Title: Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Content: 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.

Title: Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Content: 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.

Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: 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.

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

Title: Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Content: 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.

Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: 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.

Title: physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: "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.

Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: I don't know why you keep saying that the process is arbitrary, because it isn't. People are not arbitrarily moved to hospice care. That is a much more involved and arduous process among the patient, family and doctors than some doctor simply saying "Ok, you're going to die now because I've arbitrarily made the decision to let you die without having some medical reason to back it up". Doctor shopping the likes of Rush Limbaugh hopping around trying to buy amounts of Oxycontin that would ordinarily kill an elephant only happens because such a thing is illegal. Once euthanasia was made legal, the only reason why a doctor would say no is because they medically don't fit a need for it or the doctor doesn't personally believe in it. I, personally, don't believe that a doctor should be allowed to deny someone requesting it. Doctors who do believe in physician-assisted suicide have thus far been forced to watch patients degenerate over long periods of time until a painful death, so why should doctors who don't believe in it be able to skirt their obligation to their patients and deny them the care they deserve? If there is doctor shopping to find someone who will assist someone who wouldn't fit the need for hospice care, then that will be illegal in the same way as doctor shopping for large quantities of controlled drugs is illegal now. It might happen regardless, but to say that small problem should derail euthanasia from becoming legal is ridiculous. If you do think euthanasia should be kept illegal because of the threat of doctor shopping, then we should re-evaluate a number of privileges that doctors have now that might potentially be shopped around for. Are you talking about doctorates or physicians? I take all my classes from Ph.D's, but none of them are physicians. If you are talking about all doctorates, then of course I wouldn't want your friend to help me or anyone commit suicide because they aren't an actual doctor. I wouldn't want my Public Policy professor helping anyone commit suicide. But actual doctors, with actual medical degrees, who actively practice medicine in a medical environment (so pretty much the "white coat" physician that everyone thinks of when you say "doctor) should be allowed to make that call. I figured that when we were talking about physician-assisted suicide, you knew I meant actual physicians and not anyone with just a doctorate. I might have been mistaken, but I doubt it. That's a great story about your dad, but he wouldn't have been able to make the call himself since he wasn't 18, so it doesn't fit in this debate. Is there a possibility that some of the people who would opt for euthanasia would have perhaps pulled out of their illness, such as with your dad...maybe. There are stories of people waking up one morning and no longer having cancer, but this rarely ever happens and should not be counted on to happen with any regularity. Not only would they have to miraculously recover, which almost never happens, but that person would also have to have actually selected euthanasia, which is a personal choice many people will not make. Their suicide would also would have had to happen before they had their miraculous recovery, which presumably would not be a same-day kind of procedure. All of these things happening would make such an occurance incredibly unlikely. Thus, national policy should not be based off of something as unlikely as that, especially since the decision would be based on the individual patient's decision. Death penalty supporters don't seem to be very deterred by the much more likely possibility of putting an innocent person to death, and that's when the state is forcing the issue on the individual.

Title: Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: 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.

Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: 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.

Title: Terminally ill patients should be given the option of assisted death Content: The US national library of medicine did a study on the attitude of terminally ill patients toward euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. In this study they had 70 patients. 32 men and 38 women with a median survival of 44.5 days. 73% of these patients believed that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. The main reasons for choosing this option where pain and their right to choose. As for the pain. Yes it can be managed, but that does not mean the pain will go away. The further into the illness the patient is, the more pain there will be because of the illness spreading and taking over their body. Drugs can only control so much, and a doctor can only give so much medicine before it becomes dangerous. By dangerous I mean too much medicine could cause an overdose, or could cause other side effects such as difficulty breathing which would add more pain for the patient. As for freezing the patient, I am not sure what you mean, but I am going to assume you are talking about cryogenic ally freezing. To be cryogenically frozen the patient must first be pronounced dead. It is illegal to cryogenically freeze someone who is still alive. There are scientist and doctors out there who are always looking for a cure to every known disease out there. however, it takes time to find a cure, and once found it takes an average of 7 years to get the drug into the market. Given how most terminal patients only have 6 months to live, they won't have time to get the drug. Some illnesses do take longer then 6 months to kill, such as aids. However, most patients don't think about ending their suffering, or don't want to end their suffering until it is too much for them to handle. There are certain medical things a doctor looks at to determine the amount of time a terminal patient has left such as how far a cancer has spread and how fast the illness is taking over someone's body. They might not always be accurate, but it is only a guess, which most of the times is pretty accurate. it might not be accurate right down to the last second or minute or hour, but it is close. Selfish is defined as lack of consideration for another. in the case of a person not letting someone make the decision to end their pain is selfish because they are not considering the fact that the person is suffering. With assisted death, the patient can choose when to end their suffering. That would give the patient time to spend with their loved ones and they would know how much time they have left with them. It would also save the patients family from having to watch their loved one suffer in pain. Respect is defined as deep admiration for someone. when you respect the patients decision to end their pain it is not sending a message that their life is less precious than anyone Else's. It is saying that you respect that person's decision. They have a right to say what happens in their life. to say that they don't have a decision is sending a bad message to others. it is kind of like saying you don't think they can make their own decision, as if they were incompetent. Legalizing assisted death would not cause more terminal illnesses. If it is legalized it gives the terminally ill patient more options. It gives them control of the illness. They won't lose respect for themselves because they are given another option. Saying that a terminally ill patient at the end of there life is not the person you once knew is not devaluing the patient. it is simply stating that the person who once was able to run miles without stopping, loved to laugh and hang out with friends, and paint, is no longer able to do that. they lost the things they loved and once looked forward to doing every day. yes they still have their family, but they can't do anything with them like they could before the illness which causes sadness. You would be watching someone who once was happy and always had a smile slowly wither away in the pain into someone unfamiliar to you. Their is nothing to fear but fear itself. so why should someone fear death, and not knowing when they will die? Giving the patient the option to end their pain would put them more at ease and give them time not to fear, or lessen the fear of death. http://zidbits.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.skirsch.com...

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional Content: 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.

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

Title: Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized Content: Thank you Minuteman, for your arguments/rebuttals. Now, for my rebuttal. Duty of the Physician Con argues that a physician should not be allowed to participate in a PAS because doing so would be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. However, while the quote Con used ("I will not prescribe a patient a lethal drug,”) IS in the Hippocratic Oath, what Con fails to account for is the fact that the Oath has been tweaked, as well as some parts of the Oath have been effectively abandoned ever since it was first created. For example, in the Oath, abortion is prohibited for doctors, as well as surgery (“I will not cut persons laboring under the stone.”) [1]. However, nowadays, there are physicians that perform abortions, and even more physicians are surgeons. Using this logic, why should PAS be any exception? To even further dismantle Con’s argument of the Hippocratic Oath, sources indicate that, even during the days of Hippocrates, PAS’s, as well as euthanasia (but that’s a different matter), were actually quite commonly performed, as well as recommended, by physicians [2]. So, again, I raise the question: if PAS’s were administered even when the Oath was created, then why should modern-day PAS’s, be any exception? One final point I’d like to make involves the actual core value of the Hippocratic Oath. The main value that the Oath is trying to uphold is for physicians to not do any harm (hence the original prohibition of abortion/surgery.) The definition of harm as a noun is “physical injury or mental damage; hurt,” [3]. But the big question is, isn’t forcing a person to live with a terminal illness against their wishes, and in physical and mental pain, the definition of harm, and thus doing harm? So, by that logic, not legalizing PAS is going against a value at the heart of the Hippocratic Oath. To defend this specific point; even though I dismantled actual pieces of the Oath, most, if not all doctors, would agree that the core value of the Hippocratic Oath is still relevant and should be followed. Harming Others’ Rights? Here, Con argues that by having a PAS, the patient is infringing on his/her relatives’ right to “the pursuit of Happiness,” as written in the U.S. Declaration of Independence [4]. While this “unalienable right,” is a core value of the United States, the Declaration of Independence has very little, if any official legal weight [5]. So, I could technically stop rebutting this argument here, as this debate is about the legalization of PAS, and is therefore about whether any rights are legally infringed upon. But, I will rebut Con’s argument under the assumption that the right to “the pursuit of Happiness,” is a legal right. Now, here, I find that Con forgets what the right he used actually is: the pursuit of Happiness. Note that it isn’t the right happiness itself—simply the opportunity to obtain happiness. So, while a family grieves over a loved one, they still have the ability to pursue happiness. Cost of Dying Con points out here that 5/6ths of Americans have medical insurance that would pay for most, or all, medical bills. This may be true, but I feel that I must raise a contention against this argument. While it’s true that 5 out of 6 have insurance, I would like to ask what about the 1/6 that doesn’t have insurance? What Con seems to be arguing sounds a bit unfair, to say that because most people have insurance, the remaining few terminally ill should not be allowed to have a procedure that would curtail costs for relatives, among other benefits. Summary So, in short, I feel that Con’s arguments aren’t sufficient to justify not allowing anyone to have a PAS. References [1] http://nktiuro.tripod.com... [2] http://scienceweek.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://www.usconstitution.net... [5] http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com... Thanks for reading, and I await Minuteman’s response. Also, it’s my first full debate too, Minuteman.

Title: Assisted Suicide shoud be legal in Virginia Content: Today, I am here to argue that Virginia should adopt a Death with Dignity Act. I am advocating physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia refers to the killing of another in order to relieve dire suffering. Physician assisted suicide is a practice in which a physician provides a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient's request, which the patient intends to use to end his or her own life. Over the weekend I watched a documentary titled "How to Die in Oregon". This documentary told the stories of several Oregonians diagnosed with terminal diseases, nearing the ends of their lives. Cody Curtis was one of these people. Cody was a mother of two beautiful children and a wife of nearly 30 years. She loved hiking, cooking, gardening as well as spending time with her family. At the age of only 52 she was diagnosed with cancer of the bile duct which runs through your liver. She underwent an operation that removed 60% of her liver. One year later the cancer returned and metastasized to her liver, lungs and lymph nodes. Cody faced unbearable shoots of pain throughout her body. She became weaker by the days. She soon looked pregnant from the nearly 4 liters of fluid sitting in her belly. She had a drawer filled to the top in medications which did nothing for her pain. She did what she knew was the right decision for her, and that is ask her doctor about the Death with Dignity option. She was prescribed a lethal dose of Secanol. Cody said herself "I"ll know when life"s not worth living any more. It"s really nice to have a way out, to die in comfort and with dignity. I don"t want to die bed-ridden and weighing seventy pounds. I want the children to remember me as I am now, in peace and not in pain. .No one should have to die in a hospital all tangled up with tubes and wires and needles and in the kind of fear." Cody did not immediately use the medication, she waited because she would know when the time was right, but it was a comfort to have it at her side. She had it for nearly a year, outliving her less than 6 months to live expectancy. She was planning to spend another Christmas with her family, however near the beginning of December 2009 the pain became too much for Cody and she could not continue on anymore. She picked a date and on December 7, 2009 Cody drank a Secanol mixture. Within 5 minutes Cody was in a peaceful sleep and within 15 minutes she was pronounced dead. Cody had the opportunity to die surrounded by her closest friends and family. They sang songs together and were able to joke around in the moments leading to her death. Cody was able to choose a peaceful happy death to an inevitable ending in her near future. I firmly believe that death with dignity should be legal in the state of Virginia and I have three main reasons as to why. My first point is that with this act, patients will be able to die with dignity, free from pain and a possible long, suffering death. According to the Oregon DWDA Report of 2013, nearly 98% of all patients who chose DWD were able to die at home at a time they found was right for them. Being able to die with dignity is important. Especially for family and loved ones. Imagine if Cody had been your mom, your aunt, or your friend. Would you prefer to see her suffering, only knowing each day it will get worse not only for her, but also for you to watch. Or would you support her decision to decide when she knows life isn"t worth living. Carl Wellman, professor of philosophy says "One"s life is a biography experienced as a drama with a beginning, middle and end such that the intrinsic value of each part is determined much more by one"s awareness of its significance for the whole than by its felt pleasantness or painfulness. " He goes on to say that the friends or family are "condemned to live on with distressful memories of the death of their loved one". Wouldn"t you support a peaceful, graceful death for your loved one? My second point is that physicians should assume their roles in relieving the sick from suffering. Once medical treatment is exhausted, other options need to be considered. Dr. Quill a specialist in palliative care says "Although palliative care is highly effective, some patients still experience severe suffering toward the end despite our best efforts. The vast majority of patients will not require last resort options if they receive excellent palliative care, but some will. Clarity about what options are available requires that we work together to provide the best possible response to the worst possible circumstances." It follows from this that dignity is a function of someone"s personal qualities and that a death with dignity is a personal achievement; it is not something that can be conferred by others, such as health care professionals. By contrast, indignities are affronts to personal dignity. They are things that prevent or impede someone from living with dignity, mainly because they prevent him from taking an active, reasoned part in his own life. Health care professionals have a twin role here; the first is not to impose such indignities, the second is to minimize them, wherever possible My third point is that DWD is the humane thing to do. If your family pet has a medical condition rendering them in pain, you make the moral and ethical decision to end their suffering. You don"t let them sit in the vet, hooked up to ventilators and tubes. They"ve lived the best parts of their lives, and just as other terminally ill men and women they are ready to pass on. No one wants to be artificially kept alive, with your soul trapped in your body as it wastes away each day. We want to die in peace. Dr. Singer says "If I"m in pain, severe pain, and the doctors can do nothing, the pain persists and there"s nothing to take the pain away, I don"t think it"s fair to let me suffer like that, or anybody." No one wants to become a vegetable, drugged up and forced to stay alive longer than necessary. As a solution I propose that Virginia adopt a death with dignity act. Under the act the eligible adult would need to be diagnosed with a terminal illness and given under 6 months to live. They will be evaluated by one two physicians and one psychiatrist. Palliative care is first an option. If they choose DWD a representative from Compassion with Choices will come to their home to help with the final arrangements where they first ask them if they know they have the right to change their mind. And finally if they know what the medication will do to them. Strict rules will be put in place regarding who it is available to, as in Oregon that will minimize abuse and harm to the weak, or mentally incapacitated. In Oregon, the patient must make two oral requests separated by 15 days. They must then provide written request to his/her physician signed in the presence of two witnesses. The prescribing physician and a consulting physician must confirm the diagnosis and prognosis as well as determine if the patient is capable. The physician will also inform the patient of feasible alternatives. This will give people the legal right they deserve, giving them a safe, legal operation instead of illegal underground means. We have the choice to remove life sustaining care. We have the choice to not seek treatment. But why don"t we have the choice as to when we know the time is right for us to die. Having a dignified, compassionate way to help loved ones pass should be an inalienable right. I"m not saying this is a must for everyone, and I"m not saying anyone needs to be forced to do this, but I have compassion and respect for those courageous enough to choose this. Cody didn"t want to die. If any of these people had the option they would choose to be healthy and happy, but I respect their courage and bravery to stand up and decide what was best for them.

Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: I thank you for a well though out response. I just want to state, no where in the United States has been euthanasia legal; however, there are 4 states with physician assisted suicide. 1. Immoral Pain is pain no matter what if it is physical or mental, its purpose is still to protect you by letting you know there is something wrong. Although my opponent offers his version of morality which is referred to as the Harm principle which is "As long as the action involves only consenting adults it is morally permissible.", but I don't believe this is really how he would determine morality. Irving Kristol wrote an argument to this saying "[T]he plain fact is that none of us is a complete civil libertarian. We all believe that there is some point at which the public authorities ought to step in to limit the "self-expression" of an individual or group even where this might be seriously intended as a form of artistic expression, and even where the artistic transaction is between consenting adults. A playwright or theatrical director might, in this crazy world of ours, find someone willing to commit suicide on stage, as called for by the script. We would not allow that-any more than we would permit scenes of real physical torture on the stage, even if the victim were a willing masochist. And I know of no one, no matter how free in spirit, who argues that we ought to permit gladiatorial contests in Yankee stadium, similar to those once performed in the Coliseum of Rome-even if only consenting adults were involved." [1] If this is really does believe this then All Drugs & Alcohol, Euthanasia/Suicide, Prostitution, Polygamy, Gay Marriage, Cannibalism, Bestiality, Incest, Public Nudity, Abortion (According to some people), Dueling/Fights to the Death, All weapons of any kind be owned should all be legal and is morally permissible; however I felt that I have shown that it does harm people like the disabled and the elderly. 2. Subjectivity It doesn't deny that it is the patients that feel pain, it implies you can get different opinions from doctors weather an illness is terminal, or you are in unrelievable pain. In fact he actually elaborates further on my point with "Pain can be tiny to one person but huge to another, the most basic example is that some people can walk over broken glass smiling!" Measuring pain does have to do with it because in place where euthanasia is legal "The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain." [2] Why does the family have to be okay with it? Should it not be solely up to the patient? I will address relief of pain later. 3. Right to Die No, I don't think this is a problem, but you said it was a Human rights; However, the supreme court unanimously disagrees. They also ruled similarly, 9-0, in Vacco v. Quill. [3] Also, it is not mentioned anywhere in the Universal Declaration of Human rights. [4] 4. Slippery Slope How isn't this a slippery slope? The Groningen Protocol is a form of Non-voluntary Euthanasia. How isn't it killing infants? You can't euthanize something that isn't alive. Yes, I would rather deny the infants right to life based on my subjective judgement that they don't want to live. When people receive their medical degree they have to take something called the Hippocratic oath. In the Hippocratic oath it prohibits directly or indirectly killing human beings. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. [7] By violating this oath how can we know the doctor is acting in the patients interest? A physician's role is to kill illnesses not kill patients. 5. Voluntary? You agree that elderly people feel they are a burden and would seek euthanasia because of it, but you think since it would be legal it would make families care more? Why do they need the ability for a doctor to kill them before families pay attention? Like you said if you knew a family member wanted to die, they could kill themselves many ways if they want to they don't need euthanasia to maybe have their families care. I also covered people with disabilities would also feel that "burden" too. In fact those are the two groups targeted by euthanasia the "non-providers", the weakest, and most vulnerable it only makes them feel worse. It was a euthanasia program. It is involuntary euthanasia, but it is still euthanasia. It rarely is an act of free will, so the comparison isn't as far off as you think because the Nazis were getting rid of the people who were "non-providers", the weakest, and most vulnerable. Euthanasia is "The term normally implies an intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who wishes to die." [5] 6. Pain Relief People 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.mandm.org.nz... [2] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org... [3] http://www.oyez.org... [4] http://www.un.org... [5] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [6] http://www.ethicsforschools.org... [7] http://www.life.org.nz... [8] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

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

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

Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: 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.

Title: should California legalize physician assisted suicide Content: The response from con sounds very personal. If you are struggling the concept of euthanasia intellectual, then read on. If however you are struggling with this because of a family member, or close friend suffering with a terminal illness, I suggest you simply stop now. If the case is the latter, I offer my condolences.Rebuttal “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.”While this statement is unquestionably true, it changes very little about the debate. The death of a terminally ill patient is coming regardless of allowing them a choice on how and when they die."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."Well, often it is a perfect chance to “say goodbye”. To say goodbye while still in control of their own body’s. In control of their minds. Still in control."I think I should have been clearer in my reason of arguing, I can find no logical evidence of suicide of any sort being even remotely moral or justifiable."I am providing logical and moral reasoning for an individual to choose to end their life’s on their own terms. Individuals have a moral right to body autonomy. A moral right to make choices about their own body. Externaly interested parties can encourage, attempt to persuade the individual, but they have no moral right to override the terminally ill patient’s decision."The united states is creating a drug used for the sole purpose of suicide in patients with terminal illnessI know of no such drug, and you have provided no information about it. If, however, someone is attempting to craft a specific drug, that sounds like a good idea.Every Day more than 2,500 kids(12 to 17) abuse prescription drugs, Depressants, opioids and antidepressants are the leading cause of suicide by 45%."The leading cause of suicide is depression"Of the 1.4 million drug-related emergency room admissions in 2005, 598,542 were associated with abuse of pharmaceuticals alone or with other drugs."I see no connection between this and the question."In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration found that abuse of the painkiller Fentanyl killed more than 1,000 people that year in the US. It is thirty to fifty times more powerful than heroin. Fentanyl is an opioid medication. An opioid is sometimes called a narcotic. Fentanyl is used as part of anesthesia to help prevent pain after surgery or other medical procedure.But teens and adults are using them to satisfy a desperate need to leave the life they live, I don"t care about religion, I don"t care about body autonomy. What I care about is the fact the U.S is even considering making suicide legal to a "certain degree, at no degree is it ok to tell someone they have a right to kill their selves."Telling someone they have a right to do what is already a right is a little counterintuitive. I am suggesting that body autonomy is a right."What I care about is the message that this law is sending to teens all over the state, I"m not the smartest girl but I know a stupid idea when I see one ,and this is the dumbest idea congress could have ever created."You are conflating two issues. Teen suicide and euthanasia. If there were a relation then it would be worth talking about, but I can find no causal relationship, and you have provided none.Body autonomy is not the ultimate point in this argument. The point in this argument and is that this one decision is going to end up stirring a nationOK. Stir the nation. However, as I referenced above, 7 in 10 Americans support euthanasia [5]. 70% is a clear mandate. Section 443.2 of SB 128 states"this bill would make it a felony to knowingly alter or forge a request for medication to an individuals life without his or her authorizations or to conceal or destroy a rescission of a request for medication, if it is done with the intent or effect of causing the individuals death. The bill would make it a felony to knowingly coerce or exert undue influence on an individual to request medication for the purpose of ending his or her life or to destroy a rescission of a request."I have no issue with this wording."There are multiple way around this bill and flaws that could end up with citizens going to jail and being charged with homicide if they make one fatal mistake."I see no evidence for this assertion."Everything else I have to say is completely in my own opinion.Debate cant only be supported by facts because no one wins that way you have to appeal to the peoples emotion."To be frank, the only appeal to emotion I have seen is from you."I debate because I feel strongly about something, and I don"t care if people say I"m wrong, The whole purpose of debating is to open your side of the story. Its not about who has better facts or who"s a better speaker, because at the end of the day how much of that is really going to matter? None of it, because you still have to make a choice."I am arguing for choice. The patient’s choice over what happens to his own body."Put yourself in their families" shoes, their loved ones are dying of terminal illness, and kids are killing themselves. Wouldn't you want your little girl, or your big sister your brother or even your father to hold out for just a few more minutes so you can tell them how much you love them, and tell everyone that they were survivors not quitters? I want to fight to my last breath. It doesn't matter if I win this debate or not, and I probably won"t, but I want everyone to know exactly how I feel about Physician assisted suicide."How you feel is clear. What you may like may not be what the terminal patient wants, and as I have discussed. It is their choice, not your choice.ConclusionThe to control their bodys is the issue in this debate. While emotions run high for intrested family and firends, their wishes simply cannot overide the will and wish of the patient. The choices they make are for their own reasons, and not to be dismissed because of anothers selfish desires.Vote pro.Poll - Euthanasia[5] http://www.gallup.com...

Title: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized. Content: 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...

Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: As it is clear from your very long and well thought out 2nd argument that you are obviously a disciple of Jack Kevorkian and his reasoning I'm going to approach this from a different direction if that's ok. I've already briefly addressed the problems with allowing a man to decide when another man/woman "should" be allowed to die but I'd like to examine that issue further. To do so makes the process completely arbitrary. Dr. Jack says no so you go to Dr. John. He says no, you go to Dr. Allen and so on until you get the answer you want. This is already practiced by "patients" who are drug addicts, what makes you think it wouldn't become widespread among the suicidal? I believe you said somewhere in that dissertation that Kevorkian turned down 5 for every 1 he accepted or some similar % anyhow. OK, so HE arbitrarily gets to decide who lives and who dies? You don't see the problem with this? As long as the decider has a doctorate it's O.K. with you? I literally know a man with a doctorate who is having trouble paying this months rent, should HE be allowed to decide? (dude wants to die, I need the money. Who loses?) If you think this wouldn't play into the situation at all you are quite naive. It seems that most of what you wrote was a glowing support of Jack Kevorkian and his "cause". Yet you fail to address standards and practices other than stating "if they are diagnosed as terminal". That's your be-all end-all standard, eh? Let me tell you a personal story. My father was diagnosed with a "terminal" illness at age 13. He was in constant pain and the Doctors were certain he had less than a year to live. Obviously, since I'm here to write this, that diagnosis was wrong. He did pass at age 58 after fathering and raising 3 children while living most of his life pain free. I tell this story only to illustrate but one of the problems with your fail safe reasons for allowing physician assisted suicide. You see, my father would have qualified under your vetting process when he was 13 years old.

Title: Should Physician assisted suicide be legal Content: A1: Physician-assisted suicide (I'll just call it assisted suicided henceforth) is a well thought-out policy that has many advantagesMy opponent argues that the law passed in Oregon has several safeguards to ensure that patients who make the decision are in a clinically competent frame of mind, and are aware of the consequences. Furthermore, a lot of time is taken for hospital authorities to appropriately evaluate requests for assisted suicide. He also wisely cites public health reports that show that a majority of patients in Oregon who opted for the programme are educated, and therefore competent enough to make an informed decision. He concludes that the policy allows a patient to die with dignity.Response: Not being an American citizen or an expert of any kind on medical law, I will have to cite an expert on the effectiveness of the law in Oregon. The following was published in 2008 in the medical journal Geriatric Medicine, under the website of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre:"Oregon, whose law permitting assisted suicide (though not euthanasia) came into force in 1997 is often presented as a model for other legislatures to follow. In fact, Oregon polices assisted suicide even less than does the Netherlands: self-reporting by doctors is followed by no investigation, but merely a passive reporting by the relevant authority.[v] And although nothing like the official Dutch surveys has been carried out in Oregon, there is anectodal evidence of patients being pressured to die or undertreated on the grounds that they have a suicide prescription and need nothing more. [vi] It is worth pointing out that reported pain in Oregon has worsened since assisted suicide was legalized, [vii] and that the State, which funds assisted suicide, is less ready to fund essential medical services for those who want and need them."This article tells us that far from the rosy picture that my adversary paints, enforcement of the law, for example, is a daunting task that the Oregon authorities are not a success story on. The safeguards that my adversary mentions look good on paper, but are very difficult to enforce, leading to the problems mentioned by the above. It is indeed disturbing to hear that it even encourages the state to push people who need medical services to consider assisted suicide.The sources of the reference marks above are:[v] Keown J. Considering Physician-Assisted Suicide: An evaluation of Lord Joffe's Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. 2006; Care Not Killing Alliance, London: 11. [vi] Keown J. Considering Physician-Assisted Suicide: An evaluation of Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. 2006; Care Not Killing Alliance, London: 13-14. [vii] Fromme EK, Tilden VP, Drach LL, Tolle SW. Increased Family Reports of Pain or Distress in Dying Oregonians. J of Palliative Med 2004;7:431-442.Aside from the above, there are some fundamental points that I disagree with my adversary on, and I shall provide reasons for these disagreements. I look forward to his responses on them. CA 1: PAS is not taking "ones own life".My adversary confuses Physician-assisted suicide with the conventional understanding of suicide. Oxford Dictionary defines "suicide" as "the action of killing oneself intentionally". Assisted suicide, however, cannot be looked at as an act in isolation, or a private act. Assisted suicide involves a medical practitioner facilitating the death of another person, and a wide variety of stakeholders, including these medical practitioners, patients, the patients' families and society, are affected by the ramifications of assisted suicide. I will go into just a couple of these stakeholders.1. Doctors and medical ethicsIn the words of the International Code of Medical Ethics, "A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception". This code inspires doctors to place the foundations of their practice on the value of human life, engenders empathy for the patient, and thereby strengthens the doctor-patient relationship. Reminding doctors of the value of human life inspires them to do their best to preserve it at all costs. Legalising assisted suicide creates a dangerous precedent, that adds to the conflict in the mind of doctors.If hastening the death of a terminally ill patient was to become a routine administrative task for a doctor, and indeed it can, then there is the potential for a lack of compassion when dealing with elderly, disabled or terminally ill people.If the doctor is the person (or one of the people) who evaluate(s) the patient's well-being, then there is a definite possibility that a patient may begin to distrust his/her doctor. As mentioned on the website of the National Health Service in the UK, where this debate is ongoing, "They may think that their doctor would rather 'kill them off' than take responsibility for a complex and demanding case." 2. Ramifications on society, and ethical implicationsAll humans are said to have inalienable rights, and the right to life is one of them. "Inalienable" means that they may not be given up, nor may they have these rights taken from them, except under process of the law (meaning if they're criminals). My adversary has not given any reasons for believing that patients have any right to take their own lives, nor has he given reasons to believe that the healthcare system has the right to take the lives of others. If he does, however, believe that deciding whether to live or die is a right, then he must accept that this right cannot only be arbitrarily ascribed to the sick, or terminally ill. If it is truly a human right, then it must be made available to all people who wish for it. I am interested in my opponent's response to this. I will not offer any further arguments at this point, because I have refuted my opponent's argument and given him plenty to refute.ConclusionIt is true that assisted suicide offers dignity to people in pain. However, "dignity" can be a dangerous and misleading veneer for "convenience", either on part of the patient, the patient's family, the doctor, or as we have seen, even the Government. Assisted suicide should not be legal because of the several unpleasant effects on society, which cannot be ignored and which certainly outweigh the proposed benefits of the law.Sources1. http://www.linacre.org...2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...3. http://www.nhs.uk...4. http://www.care.org.uk...

Title: Assisted Suicide shoud be legal in Virginia Content: I have the same objects to Physician assisted suicide as I do with Euthanasia, they are it is immoral, they are subjective, there is no right to die, it will lead down a slippery slope to other things, it really isn't voluntary, it is against any every major religion, and it degrades human life. First lets address my opponents points. "patients will be able to die with dignity, free from pain and a possible long, suffering death. " You mentioned Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. In Oregon you qualify for PAS if "An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner" [1] It makes no mention of pain. Further, "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. " [2] Since Pain can be controlled it should not be used as a reason to kill yourself. "physicians should assume their roles in relieving the sick from suffering" When people receive their medical degree they have to take something called the Hippocratic oath. In the Hippocratic oath it prohibits directly or indirectly killing human beings. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. [3] By violating this oath how can we know the doctor is acting in the patient's interest? A physician's role is to kill illnesses not kill patients. "DWD is the humane thing to do" This is basically saying it is compassionate to kill them because they have no hope of recovery. "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. Antibiotics, immunizations, modern surgery and many of today’s routine therapies or medications were unknown then. " [4] It is never humane to kill humans, and there is always hope for a cure. Now to the objections 1. Immoral One 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 [5] , 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. Subjectivity Due 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" [1] 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. Since there is subjectivity, it makes the law hard to enforce and have safeguards for. 3. Right to Die The 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. [6] 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 Slope The 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. [7] 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. ”" [8] "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" [2] 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://euthanasia.procon.org... [2] . http://www.ethicsforschools.org... [3] . http://www.life.org.nz... [4] . http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org... [5] . http://www.siue.edu... [6] . http://www.oyez.org... [7] . http://www.nejm.org... [8] . https://www.nrlc.org...

Title: Bsh1 Debate Tournament: The U.S. Government Should Legalize Euthanasia. Content: We Already Allow Suicides:First of all, if a person is actually determined to commit a suicide and carries his/her actions out successfully, it does not make sense to have this action as illegal. We cannot imprison a body as a result, nor can we fault the family of the person committing suicide, ergo in this context of legality it simply makes more sense to legalize assisted-suicide by default. If the legal system is a set of state-enforced mechanisms to deter undesirable behaviours and to offer incentives to desirable behaviours, then we can see there is no reason to keep assisted suicides illegal, we cannot force that person to no longer want to kill themselves should they be successful. Say your life is only held onto by "life support", this machine is breathing for you, feeding you, and is the only thing actually keeping you alive due to a critical injury. You are in fact allowed to refuse it, causing your own death. In other words, by complicity the doctors allowing you to refuse treatment, they are assisting your suicide. Now one might say the doctors ought to force the patient, however this would void power of attorney, and ergo would be illegal in such an event. Doctors are suppose to comply with the consent of their patients, thus if the patient refuses treatment, this is a form of suicide. In fact, the following states already have legalized assisted suicides: Montana, Oregon, and Washington (State)http://www.cbc.ca... This Furthers the Liberty of the Individual: This argument is simple and straight-forward. You do not choose to be born or not. This seems to be in a half-determined part of the world. We all start as cells, and morph into people. If that is the case, then why can't a person refuse this life by euthanasia? The Physical Can Complete His Duty to His Patients More Intimately:In medical ethics, the doctor must do his best within the limitations of the law to relieve the pain of the patient. Along with the fact that he must preserve the dignity of said patient. If a patient has a terminal illness, then in the name of relieving pain, that doctor can and should put to death his patient to lessen the suffering. (Again on the condition of informed consent)Less Costly to the System: I shall quote a fellow DDO member on here in another debate, he put it elegantly. "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 [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com......]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 [http://www.nejm.org......]. 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 [http://www.funeralswithlove.com......]), or other debts that may need to be paid. 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/she be relieving his/herself of suffering, but also saving money for his/her relatives or beneficiaries as well." ~ DetectableNinjaAll Countries Named Have Universal Care When Giving Suicides:Legally, the only person capable of administering said assistance to suicide would be the doctors, that is it, not some private firm. This would ideally prevent anyone from trying to convince someone to undergo PAS for any fraudulent reasons. Finally, Say You're Married, and You Are a Proxy For Someone Incapable of Making Decisions: This can lead to a very uncomfortable scenario. The person trusted with making decisions may suffer from depression or other psychological trauma wondering if they're making decisions consistent with that patent's wishes. If someone was unable to move or speak, and was in pain, would they want to continue to fight? Or finally die and be at peace? Likewise, what about other people putting pressure on that proxy that might be in direct violation of the patients wishes? How would they feel? PAS is another option which enables this scenario to be completely by-passed, and not allow that poor person designated as a proxy to have to shoulder so much burden when the time comes (should it ever come). Thank you!Summary:(1) Already allow it, cannot charge a body(2) Furthers liberty(3) Doctor does his duty more(4) Save on costs (5) Relieves strains on proxies Therefore, we can conclude that the US ought to legalize doctor assisted suicides (a.k.a PAS) Over to my opponent!

Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: 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!

Title: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: We aren't legalising homicide, we are letting people choose to die when they are unable to. Oprah (and most likely the other two, I don't know who they are) would have been able to commit suicide whether or not euthanasia was legal, she could have easily thrown herself in front of a train, jumped off a bridge or taken an overdose. Euthanasia needs to be there for people who are unable to commit suicide. So, even if euthanasia was legal, we would still have Oprah and other icons. In 2005, Tony Nicklinson from Wiltshire suffered a stroke at the age of 51. Consequently, he suffered from locked-in syndrome and was unable to talk, walk, move his arms and he had absolutely no independence. He lived a life of absolute misery. His wife would have done anything to help him painlessly put an end to his misery but because of laws banning assisted suicide in the United Kingdom, she could do nothing. Mr Nicklinson's only choice was to starve himself. After refusing food for one week, Tony passed away; but this week of intense pain he endured could have been stopped if euthanasia was legal. Tony would have committed suicide either way, the British government forced him to do it in a most painful and horrible way. People who want to commit suicide will usually find a way to do it; by legalising euthanasia we can make it a better path for them all. I understand what you're saying about potential trauma for the person who assisted with the suicide but we can take measures to ensure they are not pushed into it and are perfectly comfortable with doing it. But imagine how traumatic it must have been for Tony's wife, having to watch her husband endure the worst pain every day of his life and watch him waste away as he took a difficult but the only path to an end to misery.

Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: 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.

Title: Legalizing euthanasia places an unreasonable burden on doctors Content: 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.

Title: Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: I will readdress his doctor's opinion's on PAS in my second contention. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia without consent. My opponent does not actually refute my argument, but rather attacks the validity of my sources. He states that my ncbi source in C1 is a mere opinion, so it doesn't matter, right? Wrong, if we just so happen to look at the bottom and see his sources we can see a trememdous amount of creditable sources that he has site. Okay so what, he has valid sources? Well if we observe our J. Pereira we can see that he is the author of several medical papers and is a very creditable source. (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Secondly, he isn't the only source that I use in my argument that I've made last round. I've made two as this was the second article. (Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j. healthpol.2008.10.003) He also states that my argumentation was false, but this is incorrect as the Euthanasias without consent are that of the doctor terminating the person's life when they do not wish it to end. This simply mirrors that of putting a baby into a microwave and "drying them off. " It's not correct. Plus I've showed that even with it legal we can see that there is still a black market for euthanasia so it does not solve that problem what-so-ever. 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 woke up to be on the O’Rielily Show. (. http://www.rense.com...) 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%. (. http://www.nysrighttolife.org...) Contention 2: Slippery Slope argument. My opponent only discounts my argument as a slippery slope, but states that it doesn't have any support claims, but the two examples that he put up on petistools were the examples I used and I showed that their pregresssion has lead to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. It all started with legalizing PAS and is happening in other parts of the World. Even the US. Just like in Belgium now, people are able to euthanize children, which I had brought up last round. You can see how this is becoming socially acceptable as the numbers and the rates of euthanasias are increasing and in some cases doubling. The cases of Euthanasia in both Belgium and Neatherlands have doubled and skyrocketed since they had been able to legalize it and this is proof of this becoming a norm. There is plenty of information on euthanasia avaliable as several European nations have been doing this for years. Now once again, I understand that Pro is against involuntary euthanasia, but the fact is that I have show that by supporting this will lead to the fact of it getting legalized as it has led to the ability for children to be euthanized by the word of their parents in Belgium in 2009. So I just extend my arguments across the board. I also extend my moral decay argument. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide 21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicide Physician Characteristics: 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide Physicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South (. http://euthanasia.procon.org...) Contention 3: Self-Ownership and sickness My opponent here only quotes about my entire third Contention says I'm wrong and that's it. He doesn't refute it or anything and because of that I extend it across.

Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: 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.

Title: You Choose the Resolution! Content: It is a great pleasure to be debating with you once again, ThinkBig. *I'll be debating as Pro for "That physician-assisted suicide (PAS or euthanasia) should be legalized".* Full Resolution (Focus is the U.S.)Resolved: PAS must be legalized in all 50 states of the U.S. Preface / Understanding the debateBefore we begin, I shall present my policies and framework for this debate. It is also necessary for me to address that the BoP will be shared in this debate. I'll also dedicate this clause explaining how to fulfill the BoP: Con's burden is to present the disadvantages of euthanasia / PAS and how these disadvantages harm the U.S. The premise of this debate is centered on utility (to not be confused with the theory of Utilitarianism), which I'll define soon. To be explicit, this means that the burden of each debater is to provide evidence substantiating that PAS is either useful to the U.S., meaning that it benefits the people of the nation (Pro's objective) or alternatively, it harms the people of the U.S. and is overall damaging / and or dangerous to the nation (Con's objective).FrameworkMy framework is pretty simple, my arguments will focus on autonomy (the right to death in this case), the alleviation of pain of terminally ill patients and the problems with current laws. I will as well focus on the Hippocratic Oath and what part it plays in PAS. Succinctly, if a patient is under excruciating pain caused by his or her sickness, he / or she should have the right to decide if they want to be permanently relieved of that pain through the means of pain-free lethal medication (assisted suicide). DefinitionsLegalize: "to make legal; authorize." Utility: “the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial.”Autonomy: "Independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual."Physician-assisted suicide: "suicide with help from another person (such as a doctor) to end suffering from severe physical illness"(1). Without further ado, let the debate begin! C1: Autonomy and Alleviation of PainOne of the points that I will touch on in this debate will be a person's right to have control of their own life / self-determination. Today, more and more countries are recognizing a patient's right to die. Countries like Canada, Germany, Netherlands, and Belguim have already passed legislations concerning this issue. However, the U.S. is stubborn, with only 20 states that have (only recently) started taking a call for legislative action to pass a bill of this sort, and only 4 states allow it (3). The reason the court disagrees is because they have failed to realize that just like human life, the self-determination of a person is valuable as well. The reason this has often been neglected is simply because "ending" / or relieving someone of their painstaking illness is considered morally diminishing; however, by this criteria, prolonging the pain of that certain individual to the point where he / or she succumbs from it isn't morally unacceptable or diminishing at all. The Economist conducted a survey in 15 countries where they asked people if it is a morally justifiable act for doctors to assist in their terminally ill patients' suicide by prescribing them lethal medication. Based on the results, Russia and Poland were against, but America and Western Europe were strongly in favor. Oregon, a state that has condoned PAS with their Death and Dignity Act have prescribed lethal medication to 1,327 people so far, and less than 50% of those individuals used it to alleviate their death. Undeniably, it is not the Netherlands where assisted suicide is accountable for 3% of deaths of the total population, and that's explainable, patients there are heavily relied upon and trust their medical professionals (2). Surely, my opponent may argue that we don't need PAS because the advancement of medical technologies will help to extend our lives and palliate the illness we may be succumbing to. However, here's the conflict. Due to the fact that many jurisdictions are discarding PAS, they're actually doing their citizens a disservice by prolonging the individual's pain and suffering (3). Australian gynaecologist Dr. Rosemary Jones says, "We stand for a group of doctors distressed about the small number of patients, who, at the point of death, get no relief from palliative care" and further, "We thoroughly endorse the practice of palliative care for 95 [percent] of all palliative care [patients] and understand that for five per cent, there are persistent problems beyond relief provided for by palliative care" (4). Succinctly, palliative care isn't always the answer. The attitude U.S. should adopt towards PAS is that it's the final stage of proper care and prolongation of life, and life cannot exist without death. C2: Current law does more damageA 57 year old British national by the name of Paul Lamb who became paralyzed after a near fatal car accident has currently spent 23 years of his life lying in bed immobilized. Because of this, he filed for assisted suicide, which was immediately discarded, despite that he described his life as a "living hell"; specifically, he is taking heavy dosages of drugs to alleviate his excruciating spinal pain caused by the accident. The court also said that any medical professional who would dare help him commit suicide will be penalized (5). According to Lamb, the reason his case was discarded is because policymakers simply don't want the UK to be another European country that permits PAS. In fact, he said that the authority is "scared to death". He further commented, "Politicians are scared to death. It is a case of `Oh no, we can't do that - it's too risky'. If there was a politician with the guts to take it on it would be alright but I don't think they have got it in them" (6). Because of the court's rejection, Lamb took further legal action: "I am doing this for myself as and when I need it. I'm doing it for thousands of other people living what can only be described as a hell. Many of them have been in touch with me begging me to continue this fight. The more it goes on the stronger I am getting" (6). His daily routine includes taking analgesic drugs like morphine to mitigate his pain. Lamb is not alone on this, a (now deceased) man who had suffered from(6). As for the US, a popular case would be Britanny Maynard's case, a woman who was diagnosed with brain cancer. Maynard knew that her odds were slim; hence, she decided to relocate to Oregon where PAS was legal. Although she was a supporter of euthanasia, her actions show us that self-determination is one of the most important aspects of our life (7). Although there are numerous cases of this sort, I believe the concept behind several PAS-related cases is simple and clear. People want to end their suffering. Surely, the medication and technology that soothes the pain does exist, but the issue doesn't change. The person is not cured, and frankly, sometimes there isn't a cure, which is the case for many terminally ill patients. The sufferer will still be in bed, taking drugs and feeling the pain with or without medicine, which only temporarily soothes the pain. Sometimes the best way to help someone is permanently relieving them of that pain; it is better to die painlessly rather than to experience suffering for the remaining years of your life, and waiting until you succumb from your disability / or sickness. C3: The Hippocratic Oath isn't violatedI believe one of the main factors to acknowledge when instigating PAS is the role of the Hippocratic Oath. Now, in Hippocrates' era, there was no ban placed on assisted-suicide in Greece. Nevertheless, many medical professionals still argue that based on the Hippocratic Oath--to not give their patients lethal drugs--PSA is a violation. Interestingly enough, in ancient Greece, doctors had permission to give their patients lethal medicine if asked by their patients. Aside from that, should we even rely on the Hippocratic Oath anymore? Despite it being a sacred, ancient document, the oath has been revised several times. For instance, verses about women in the medical field and a verse about "not breaking the skin" have been removed (8). Doesn't this just show us the faultiness of the document? But to remain on-point, let's adhere to the oath being a sacred document that every practicing physician must follow. Based on the oath, doctors must (obviously) care for their patients. Discernibly, the patient's suffering must also be the doctor's top priority. However, when he / or she is constantly suffering and there's no cure for the suffering / or the chances of curing the illness is slim; then, isn't the doctor obliged to end his / her suffering. Because by the criteria, if the patient is suffering, the doctor's duty to care for the patient isn't being fulfilled (8).According to the modernized version of the oath, the right to death is being emphasized: "Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. 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. Above all, I must not play at God" (9). Evidently, the revised, international document proves that it's not against assisted-suicide (by the context). As stated by the document, the "power to take a life" is one of the most profound burdens a physician could carry.ConclusionBy my contentions, I've fulfilled my BoP by showing that without the choice of assisted suicide, a person's autonomy, self-determination, and right to choose what is best for him or her is violated. Since I'm running out of characters, I'll reserve the conclusion for the final round.Back to you, Con! =Sources=[1]:http://bit.ly...[2]:http://econ.st...;[3]:http://bit.ly...;[4]:http://bit.ly...;[5]:http://bit.ly...;[6]:http://ind.pn...;[7]:http://bit.ly...;[8]:http://bit.ly...;[9]:http://bit.ly...;

Title: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia needs to be made legal for those who need it Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: Contention 1: Unreported and Euthanasia without one's consent. A) My opponent is mistaken. Euthanasia without one's consent does include BOTH Non Voluntary Euthanasia and Involunatary Euthanasia. So my opponent is indeed incorrect at that point. The 1.7% is for the Dutch. There is reason for these facts though. It goes to show just how bad the way things are in these foreign nations that have legalized euthanasia and they have lead to these types of arguments. It is a simple impact to show just show bad it is when you legalize euthanasia and even with the proper safeguards we can see that it leads to Non Voluntary Euthanizing of children as seen in boht the Neatherlands and Beligium it may seem bogus, but facts speak for themselves. We can see that even if the US legalizes we will follow soon. B) J. Pereira is a valid source as he is a biotech which means that he is an expert in the feild as he actually understands how euthanasia works and considering that he has a PhD in genetics he once again knows how exactly this works making this a better source and concidering that I have provided multiple sources here for this we can still see that's it's valid as my opponent hasn't actually provided a source to show that it's valid. Even if you do not take J Pereira as a valid source he still had several soveral sources that show that the source is creditable from within the reserch that he has done. When it came to Terri Schiavo she did indeed recover. As a matter of fact here is a video showing that she was a fully responsive and functional human being before euthanasia took it's full effect and killed her. () Contention 2: Slippery SLope Argument. I will bring this up as I have before. THis is the name of the argument given to it by the author of the argument. The person is Ezekiel Emmanuel who is a well known American bioethicist who has come out with this theory. In this novel, The Ends of Human Life, he goes into an argument against Euthanasia where he uses AIDs patients as an example. Where he not only blatently attacked euthanasia as murder, but as morally unjustified. "To know whether it is ethical to turn off the respirator for a quadriplegic patient requires conceptions of personal identity, a worthy human life, murder and suicide; to know how much information a doctor must provide a cancer patient to obtain proper informed consent for an experimental therapy requires conceptions of autonomy, coercion and the public good and how to balance these values; to know whether to break the AIDS patient’s confidentiality and inform his wife requires a framework for weighing the relative importance of competing individual rights as well as the public good. " As we can see my opponent doesn't actually refute any of my arguments here as he only refute's the argument as a fallacy due to a misconception of it's name. So once more I extend it all the way across the board. Contention 3: Self-Ownership and sickness. Okay so sorry if I didn't see two sentences as a refutation of 3 valid points. However it's true, because we can see that the loss of just one person is felt by the community and we can see that the collective socity needs the person more than not and it's really selfish if that one person decides to kill themselves without thinking of the collective group as a whole. My opponent also dropped a very key point and that was the self-dettermination argument that they should only kill themselves if they're in the right state of mind, but if you want to kill yourself you are in the wrong state of mind. He's also dropped palliative specialist argument showing that the numbers of people seeing them has dropped significantly.

Title: Physician assisted suicide (Euthanasia) Content: The right to life is 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 judgments 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. [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... (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... (accessed 6/6/2011)

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: Thanks for the timely response. Now as for the definition. If we observe the medical definition of Physician Assisted Suicide we will find the following definition, "Somewhat of a hybrid between passive and active euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide (PAS), also known as voluntary passive euthanasia." (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) This means that it is voluntary Euthanasia, but just by a different name. In this debate I will be arguing that the legislation of this type of Euthanasia will lead to the legislation of other types of Euthanasia outside of Voluntary Euthanasia. Now I will warn that I will give my arguments, but may not get to all of my opponent's argument here and some of them may have to wait until the next round. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) 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. ( Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.003.) A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. . Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument Keown 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. (Medical end-of-life practices under the euthanasia law in Belgium. Bilsen J, Cohen J, Chambaere K, Pousset G, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Mortier F, Deliens L N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 10; 361(11):1119-21.) 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. (The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L Health Policy. 2009 May; 90(2-3):181-7) 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" (http://www.all.org...) 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. (http://www.all.org...) Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness Consent 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. (http://www.rense.com...) 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%. (http://www.nysrighttolife.org...) 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. (http://www.vatican.va...) Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, " “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” (http://www.bmj.com...) 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.

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: Hello everyone, Let's rap up....Contention 1A.) Contention 1 does an incredible job of stating facts, these facts include: #of euthanizations done without written or explicit consent and # of all deaths defined as euthanization. The facts that he lists all apply to either The Netherlands or Belgium as can be noted by looking at his citation, some may even be statistics from combining both countries data. There is a problem with his layout though. The problem being that contention 1 isnt an argument. It is a conglomeration of unrelated facts, the problem being not, that the facts are a conglomeration, but that these facts are not tied together to form any argument, they are simply facts, which without stated reason he calls "horrible". They have no context, no stated date for each fact, or indications as to which fact relates to which country. The citation in contention 1 of his argument indicates that all facts presented before it apply to Belgium and The Netherlands however at one point he simply says, "1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia", to which I must respond, which nation, Belgium or The Netherlands? The facts are all over the place and are inconsistent as to who and when they partain. On another note, I must correct an improper assumption which is being promoted. That assumption being that EUTH without consent means, EUTH against the person's will. That would be plain murder, what this means is that the euthanization was done without explicit written legal consent. These people indicate in some manner that they wish to end their life. As for the ones that were unreported, this is because most of the doctors who preformed them didn't consider them to be acts of EUTH.B.) Now I will argue against claims made in Lannan's last speech. Firstly Let me state that I did not simply attack the validity of his sources, the source bit was simply an add-on which I will readdress momentarily. I refuted Lannan's contention 1 by stating that there is no real argument to refute save possibly an assumption that EUTH without consent means EUTH against the patients' will, which I have already covered. As I have said, There is no argument in contention 1, there is only a conglomeration of facts which do not logically relate to one another. This relates to contention 2 so you will see what I mean when I discuss logical fallacies later on.Now I would like to talk about my opponents author in contention 1, J. pereira. Right off the bat, lets talk about that list of credible studies which J. takes a part in. Just because he is in credible studies does not mean that he is in general credible, in how many of those studies was he the main author/ researcher. Secondly, just because he is an expert in one field of study, does that imply that he is an expert in the field of The Slippery-Slope of PAS? certainly not. I'll let the audience know that J. is a Chemical Biotech patent attorney with a PhD in genetics. So how is he a credible source? -http://www.oblon.com...Now I'll move onto Mrs.Terri Schiavo. Here is your claim: "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 woke up"I would like to let everyone know that Mrs. Terri Schiavo never recovered from her vegetative state of 13 years. Her tubes were removed after a very, and I mean very long series of legal/judicial and executive events to determine whether or not to remove her feeding tubes took place. In the end the courts overruled George Bush's legislation to keep her alive and her feeding tubes were pulled, she never showed any sign of recovery and died a few days later. The woman you reference who recovered from her unresponsive state, of 70 days, was a woman named a Mrs. Kate Adamson in 1995. She had her tubes pulled in 2005 and immediately afterward began to recover, They plugged her back in and she fully recovered, she lives to this day. My question is, even if you were right, how would this hurt my case? if anything the events of Kate Adamson confirm the resolution. Kate was in a completely unresponsive state and was unable to communicate in any form or fashion. Now think about this. If you were stuck in a vegetative state fully aware for the rest of your life, would you really want to be alive, trapped in the cage of your body? If it were me I would be inwardly begging for Physician Assisted Suicide or the like. Contention 2, Oh the fallaciesMy opponent crafts this arguments soley on three things: an assumption, the 'post HOC' fallacy and the 'Slippery Slope' fallacy.The Slippery Slope fallacy: Post HOC fallacy: Here are some facts my opponent uses to craft his argument:a.) The definition of euthinasia at one point simply meant killing people with terminal illness while now it means a painless death to help the terminally ill.b.) The number of people being euthanized in one or two countries has dramatically increasedc.) One medical assosiation supported very strict definitions of euthinasia and later supported less strict definitionsPlease review the Post HOC fallacy, in any of these facts does it really follow that b was caused by a? in other words, does the fact that a definition has changed or that one medical association supported less criminally strict definitions of EUTH really imply that the changes were the result of decreasing moral attitudes? Could it likely be the result of anything else? Yes, and there has been no concrete proofs, inductive nor deductive reasoning's applied to suggest anything else. Please note that these are the result of an unfounded assumption. As for b the same applies because to me all b means is that the Belgians are finally giving people their right to death with dignity not introduced some initiative to begin the genocide of the weak and sick.Here are some common examples of the slippery slope fallacy: "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!" "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die." "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you." "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!" "Once we start letting homosexuals get married, soon enough we'll be allowing sons to marry their fathers and dogs to marry monkeys!"Now here is a quote from my opponent's speech: "It all started with legalizing PAS and...now, people are able to euthanize children [soon enough involuntary EUTH will be legal and rampant]" Contention 3 "My opponent here only quotes about my entire third Contention says I'm wrong and that's it. He doesn't refute it or anything and because of that I extend it across."My opponent doesn't think that I have refuted contention 3 I will now refute that claim by showing how I have indeed refuted his third contention...refute... (had to throw it in there one more time)Premise: "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"Warrant: you haven't supported your own claim with evidence so you must "provide evidence stating that all people who are chronically ill are irrational, only then can we accept contention 3."Premise + warrant in opposition of a claim = refutation Studies and evidence I'm running out out space so i'll make this quick. Here I refute Lannan's round 3 studies on professional PAS opinions. His came from 2008 from 2k doctors in one medical assosiation. Mine from 21k doctors in dec 2014 internationally. Clearly my evidence has been consistently better and myargumentation aswell. Thank you for reading

Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: You talk about Tony reaching his potential, but what potential has he got?! I mean no offence, but he is not a scientist, he cannot be an office worker or a doctor. He can do nothing for the rest of his life but feel guilty for sponging off his wife. And yes, of course Tony would suffer depression after his event, but the stroke occurred in 2005 and he waited 7 years with still no hope and no chance of doing anything more with his life; he was a businessman, he couldn't have continued with his profession whilst suffering from locked in syndrome. You say Tony didn't have to die, but he didn't have to live either. It should be up to him to choose whether or not he lives or dies, to go through that misery or to put a stop to it. His message to us was: 'Goodbye world, the time has come, I had some fun.' He had obviously thought long and hard before going through with what he did, but having to endure even more pain for 1 week whilst suffering from pneumonia dent my pride in being British, to know that my government did that to one of our own and stripped him of his dignity. It is truly disgusting. Bringing up the problem of disguised murder, you continue to oppose euthanasia. But euthanasia is not one family member killing another. If you were to legalise it, a similar system would be used as in Switzerland. You take your family member to the clinic, they make 100% sure this is what they want and then either an injection is administered or a drink is taken and then they slowly and painlessly pass away. The family member does not actually perform the suicide. Murder would be practically impossible, there isn't a DIY option, only clinics to do the service for you. My method to help my grandfather? Taking him to Switzerland, paying for the taxi to the clinic and comforting him during his last moments. Surely THAT is more peaceful, more dignified and more desirable than watching him waste away as he refuses food or medical treatment.

Title: Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia Content: ‘Logical’ argument My opponent’s syllogism’s conclusions are flawed. If you assume the points, it may seem like a humane conclusion, however, the assumption that the points are correct--and then the conclusion--is inaccurate. My opponent’s whole arguments rests on a few things: the patients choose death, and that euthanasia will reduce their pain in the long run. Both of these assumptions are debatable. Patients who ‘choose’ death generally do so with bad reasoning. In fact, a significant amount of people who choose death are mentally ill. Research argues that if you are depressed, you are at least 4.1 times more likely to request for euthanasia, according to research of cancer patients with 3 months to live [1]. Further, in nearly every country where a form of physician assisted suicide is legal, the vast majority allow the killing of people with mental illness. In the Netherlands--which my opponent cites directly--the mentally ill are often euthanized. In Belgium, the mentally ill are euthanized in order to take their organs. The fact is, whenever you legalize physician assisted suicide, the law eventually evolves into a death-on-demand structure which leads to many people not capable of making these decisions wisely being killed [2]. Further, there is an issue of people in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada being murdered, as they are killed without explicit request. Obviously this is not legal, but the fact is that if it is legal to kill someone intentionally if they ask, it is easy just to put in your records ‘asked for death’ with minimal questioning from the law. In Oregon, the law began fairly successful. For 1/4 of patients asking for death, they received psychiatric care before their decision. They were walked through the process. However, by 2010, this has disintegrated. None of the people killed were told to seek mental care first [3]. Recent pieces by doctors bring excellent points to my opponents argument. When death becomes the answer, doctors see their patients have less faith in medical care. It is well established that people in the medical profession are a source of hope for their patients. To allow death leads to less hope, and it makes them feel unwanted--that at a certain point, life is not worth living. This is, as doctors argue, is one of the largest blows to human dignity. Further, this has led to a decrease in palliative care. Instead of easing pain and making the life worth living, physicians often choose death as a mean to end the pain, instead of attempting to help the patient [4]. A review of medical opinion shows that good pain medications can make life fairly painless, not the painful picture which my opponent construes. The vast majority of patients who suffer suffer because their doctor has not been properly instructed as to how to administer pain medication. Doctors fear to give too much pain medication as it may cause death, though this fear is often imagines. Doctors generally give medications PRN (per required need), but this leads to less satisfactory pain alleviation. Dosages vary based upon pain extent, and often underestimate the amount of medication needed, due to their lack of education on the issue. Undertreatment of pain is another leading cause for euthanasia requests. It may be thought that pain medications must be an expertise thing, this is not the case; most medicines capable of making the illness painless--therefore making euthanasia obsolete--are straightforward. Doctors need to understand that high dosages of opioids will cure the pain and are wholly safe when administered properly. Cancer patients often need 20-60mg of morphine every 4 hours. If palliative care is properly admitted, the need for pain relief through death minimizes [5]. Therefore, education of doctors, not the legalization of physician assisted suicide, will be superior in extending the life spans of patients and reducing pain. Economic Impacts Calculations show the savings per euthanasia are about 10,000 per victim. When this is properly accounted for, we would save about $627 million each year. My opponents research uses numbers including the mentally ill, who should not be allowed to receive euthanasia in the first place. So, assuming we can properly bar these people from being euthanized, this is the proper savings amount. This number is less than 1/3 of one percent of the US’s health care costs. The economic savings is very limited, and surely not worth the lives lost [6]. Other things would be far better at reducing healthcare costs: reducing regulations which amount to $169 billion of added cost to the industry each year [7], expand HSAs, push malpractice reform, privatize medicaid, and shrink the HHS would all be much better options to reducing the economic impacts of health care costs than killing patients [8]. Voluntary deaths will always occur There is no doubt in my mind that there will be the occasional euthanized patient. My opponent’s study is flawed in the fact it doesnt account for patients with mental illness. As noted, mental illness is the main cause for the decision of death, which is technically ‘voluntary’, or would be in the study my opponent cited. However, if the request was made on their basis for wanting to die due to depression, we can see how this should not be considered a true case of voluntarism, as the decision was made outside of a solid state of mind. My opponent claims euthanasia was a cause for 0.8% of deaths in the Netherlands before legalization, whereas his study noted that after legalization it was 1.7% of deaths were caused by euthanasia and .1% physician assisted suicide, totalling 1.8%, a 1% increase. Further, the rate of euthanasia has steadily increased since legalization, meaning legalization has led to more acceptance of the idea of euthanasia [9]. Further, a more recent study argues that now 2.8% of deaths are caused by euthanasia in the Netherlands [10]. Conclusion: Physician assisted suicide/euthanasia actually will harm palliative care, however, palliative care reduces, if not eliminates, the moral case my opponent construed: in fact, pain can be controlled without death and rather with proper education. The economic cost, enacting laws my opponent would pass if he was in control (has to be voluntary, not for mental illness unless treated) would actually lead to very minimal savings, and in fact, other methods that will increase quality of care--which don't involve killing patients--are superior in reducing healthcare costs. And finally, although even in areas where euthanasia is illegal euthanasia still occurs, the fact is, legalizing it leads to its practice being much more common. Even in the Netherlands where the laws prohibiting it were very unenforced, legalization led to a skyrocketing in its use. Imagine how rare it would be if the Netherlands kept their anti-euthanasia culture which they had in WW2. Euthanasia should remain illegal, resolution negated. 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. http://www.nationalreview.com... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 5. http://medicine.emory.edu... 6. http://www.levinlaw.com... 7. http://www.cato.org... 8. http://www.ipi.org... 9. http://www.life.org.nz... 10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Title: Euthanasia should be legal Content: 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?

Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: Thank you for your argument. My arguments are going to come in the form of rebuttals to each of your major points."Euthanasia, firstly violates the principle that life lasts from conception to natural life as proposed by the theologies of several major world religions."In case you haven't noticed, our government is secular. Its laws are not based on religious values. According to our Constitution, each of us has the basic human right to life. It logically follows, then, that we also have the right to end our lives prematurely if we wish. You can't force someone to keep living if they don't want to. "...several surveys have been conducted saying that most doctors in the US oppose euthanasia so how can you force them to provide the service when they see it as murder."Legalizing euthanasia isn't going to FORCE them to provide such services. It is just going to ALLOW them to provide them.An added benefit of euthanasia is that is a suicide person goes to the doctor's office for assisted suicide rather than committing suicide privately, then the doctor could possibly try to help them through suicide prevention therapy. In other words, the legalization of euthanasia could possibly (and ironically) make suicide rates drop.

Title: Physician assisted suicide (Euthanasia) Content: This is the Physicians oath as of now submitted by the World Medical Association (WMA): AT THE TIME OF BEING ADMITTED AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION: I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to consecrate my life to the service of humanity; I WILL GIVE to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due; I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity; THE HEALTH OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration; I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died; I WILL MAINTAIN by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession; MY COLLEAGUES will be my sisters and brothers; I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient; I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life; I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat; I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour. The sections that concern me the most are "The health of my patient will be my first consideration", "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life", and "I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat" These sections show that as a medical professional it is considered the worst possible action a physician can take. Thus, euthanasia is wrong and should never be practiced. Sources: http://www.wma.net... p.s. sorry if argument does not make sense english is not first language.

Title: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill Content: 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.

Title: Legalization of Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia is also known as "Physician-assisted suicide" because doctors are the ones doing the killing. Since doctors are the ones performing Euthanasia, a violation of the Hippocratic Oath is very important. Unless my Opponent is advocating someone other than doctors doing the killing, which carries extreme implications. A violation of the Hippocratic Oath by doctors specializing in Euthanasia is not important. using that logic we would also be helping depressed people by killing them. Furthermore, Euthanasia gets abused, as the doctor Herbert Hend tells us (speaking of Euthanasia in the Netherlands): This is why centers would be government run, easier to make sure there is no abuse by doctors. Guidelines such as these could not be enforced, again take the Netherlands as an example according to BBC: "The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked."[2] Once again the centers would be government run, making it easier for the government to monitor and prevent abuse. =Response to Cross Examination= 1. A simple check of medical history and their criminal record looking for signs of insanity would be required. 2. Today family members have the choice to the right to life for hundreds of "vegetable" patients. 4. You need to pass the qualifying test checking for insanity or have the family say yes. 5. If someone does not wish to live they should not be forced to live. No matter the value of their life. 6. Closely monitored, government run centers. 7. Yes because they wish to die. 8. I am trusting the government with the choice. A comparison to the Nazi government is a bit extreme. 9. No, only doctors in government run euthanasia centers can. =Rebuttal= C1. you speak of dignity quite alot, so I really must ask, how exactly is Euthanasia "dignified"? To me it seems like the easy way out, not dignified at all. It is dignified because it is helping a person out of their misery. Instead of forcing someone who wants to die to live, which is wrong, the person is given a way out and to carry out their wish to die. same with mental hospitals, should we kill them too? Not without the families consent. C2. No solvency, money would still be spent on Euthanasia in the "government run centers". Yes but it would likely outweigh $50billion dollars spent over 2 months in a hospital. Valuing money over the sanctity of life, clear miscalculation in my opinion. This does not value money over life it simply helps people carry out their wish of death. It just happens to save moeny at the same time. His plan is likely to be more expensive with his "multiple appointments" requiring Physciartrists, Doctors, ect. It would not be nearly as expensive as sitting in a hospital for two months. After all According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the cost for the drugs used in lethal injection is $86.08. This is not to say lethal injection would necessarily be the way of death but this just shows how cheap it can be. And to my opponent I ask, how can you justify forcing a person to live when they do not wish to?

Title: Should euthanasia be legal Content: 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.

Title: Assisted suicide should be legalized Content: Thank you Mikel for your rebuttal. I looked at your main points very closely and I'll will refute those points using the sources I have found and by doing so, I will try to highlight the all the problems with your argument for assisted suicide and show viewers that your argument doesn't have the moral, psychological, or scientific standing compared to my argument against assisted suicide. I will also defend myself, my sources, and my credibility in this debate and hopefully refute your rebuttal and thus leading the viewers of this debate to side against the proposition. Let me start. First pro point: This will not give Doctors the right to kill people. It gives the person a choice to end their suffering. As I have shown in my argument, with the stories I have shared in this debate. Doctors are usually not given the right to allow assisted of a terminal Ill patient, but it can be in the state's government to right to allow the assisted suicide if such an euthanasia law is put in placed. Also, as It said with my source from nrlc.org, more then 93-94% of the people that are terminal Ill are not in the mental mind to decide to take there life away. So if the person has the right to choice to end their suffering they are doing it in a bad frame of mind and if the pain was reduced and the patient was in sound mind then you can ask them whether or not to die. My source from nrlc.org also said that when pain is reduced then the patient would choice not to commit assisted suicide but to die naturally. Second pro point: Suicide is already not illegal That is true. That is because it is impossible to convict someone to a crime when the person that commits the crime is already died. This is not related at all to the topic at hand and is really not needed to be highlighted apon. Third pro point: This is an act of kindness or moral act So with that logic that means it is morally right to allow the state to allow someone that is suffering from a terminal illness rather then keeping them alive, reducing their pain and allowing them to die naturally like the majority of he population around the world do everyday. This point is not based around logic but is more of a vision of a reality that soft and flowery. Everything that can be considered living suffers. Animals suffer, planet suffer and even the small skin cell suffers and that leads to the living substance to naturally death. As this point seems to put it, we should allow to people to die unnaturally to avoid the thing that connects humans to humans and living substance to living substance that perfectcally naturally, pain and suffering. Fourth and finally point from pro: Everyone persons body is their own, and the right of life is their choice It is true that that everyone humans body is their own, I can not disagree with that. But with with my source from nrlc.org, it shows that most terminal Ill patients suffer from a mental disorder and depression caused by the illness and are not in the right mind state understand the choice at hand or taking their own life away. Studies from my source in nrlc.org also highlight that that if the right methods and techniques where used, the patient would rather choice dying naturally then dying from assisted suicide. I also highlight the stories of Wagner, Cheney, and Stroup and highlight how the state of Oregon tried to push Wanger and Stroup to allow themselves to be assisted suicide rather then give them treatment they needed and how the state ether than using the advise from trained doctors pushed Cheney to death when if she was treated for depression she would have choice to die naturally. Now I shall defend myself and my views Quotes from pro: "In cons opening points he uses three stories to illustrate how assisted suicide could be taken advantage of" Assisted suicide was taken advantage. Read my statements about what happened in Oregon and see that it was taken advantage of and that it wasn't just a theory but real life telling of how and why assisted suicide was taken advantage of. Pro missed the point that the stories I used was to highlight what happens when euthanasia law whether regulated or not can be used by the state as a way of backing out of health care payments. Put this forward a clear as possible and yet the pro still does not see the harm these laws have done and what these laws may do if passed in poorer or more populated states. Quote from pro: "Con was making this point to show that "most people" who commit suicide are undergoing depression. Where as this will not fall under the guide lines of how this law will be passed it is irrelevant" Why is the mental state of the patient irrelevant to this debate. Only a small number (6-7%) of terminal ill patients have the mental power to decide on whether or not to allow themselves to be assisted suicide and hidi png out which takes time and money that could be used on reducing the pain allowing a less painfully and more naturally path to death. Quote from pro: "(Con) ignores the fact that it is there wish not to suffer because of the vast amounts of pain they are in." As I said before, as humans we all suffer. Yes terminal Ill patients suffer a lot of pain and I also hate to see people suffer but it is not something you can avoid or should avoid. Suffering is a naturally thing and all humans feel and not just according to me but to trained medical professtionals like Dr. Kubler-Ross understand that suffering and feeling depressed about it is part of dealing with death. We can reduce the suffering of the terminal Ill patient to allow themselves to die naturally. I end here but telling the viewers to lot over all the results and to see who follower the guidelines of the debate better and to see which one of used more sounded logic and better sources. Mikel, thank you for allowing me to think long and hard about this topic, it is an important topic and I thank you for bringing it up. Now viewers, I hope that you read all the arguments and rebuttals and pick the side you think should win. Do not feel pressured, but follow with your brain and fell with your heart. Thank you!

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: 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...

Title: should California legalize physician assisted suicide Content: “Dying is not a crime.” R13; Jack KevorkianBody autonomy is the ultimate point in this argument, the concept that each individual has control over their own body and that inviolability overrides any external individual’s morals or feeling about how you may use your own body.The likely sources of interference with an individual’s right to body autonomy in the case of euthanasia are; 1) Medical professionals2) The state (government)3) Religion – Moral4) Family I will make efforts to address each with some level of detail.Medical Professionals."First do no harm." Well, that seems somewhat clear, and most of us have used this statement attached to the medical world, often with “Hippocratic Oath” in the same sentence. There is, however, some issues with the statement. It is nowhere IN the Hippocratic Oath! [1][2]. The oath does contain some pertinent passages to our topic. “I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.” What a great statement. It is warning the young healer that the application of his skills should have limits apart from his own skills. That “therapeutic nihilism” [3] or skepticism of any and all options should be avoided.But wait, there’s more!"I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug."“... Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. 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. Above all, I must not play at God.”“I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.”I quote almost the entirety of the modern oath above, as it is a wonderful statement. “…warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.” “If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility…”There’s a lot of good stuff in there. Even some that may be beneficial to con in this debate. On balance, the oath is a spectacular statement for how physicians should approach their patients. One thing is clear, the oath is speaks to balance in treatment, not rigidity. It does not insist that physicians treat a patient past his consent. It asks the doctor to be humble and receptive to his patient, to the patient’s problems outside of the medical issues, and that may include dropping the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.The medical professional has no obligation to violate the patient’s body autonomy.The StateI wonder about the order of my points, and may reorder them later. The State is the only current absolute bar to euthanasia, and therefor may deserve higher placement on the list.The question of where the state gains the power to limit an individual’s right to body autonomy as it relates to euthanasia is questionable. Where, potentially, the individual gains the right is less murky. It’s the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution [4]. The current interpretation of the amendment as it related to body autonomy has not extended to euthanasia yet. “The right of privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences.” [4], but is clearly on its way to being tested.Government, apart from doctorial regimes, must reflect the will of the governed. Provided any proposed law does not violate the constitutional restraint, government must do the bidding of the people. In this, the message is clear. 7 in 10 Americans back Euthanasia [5].There is nothing restraining the government from extending body autonomy to include euthanasia.Religion – Moral.This section of objection has little gray area as it relates to the question. With few exceptions, all major religions reject euthanasia, and body autonomy in other subjects – notably abortion.That there is little decent from a common opinion does not mean that this section is without need for discussion. There is no doubt that in our country religion should not interfere with legality. That, however, is naïve. The collective morals of the society inform the laws of the same, there for a discussion of morals is a cornerstone of the debate, and since we are talking the United States, Christianity plays a major role in the debate.Let’s start with the owner’s manual for the faith, the Bible. Similarly to the misunderstanding about the Hypocritical Oath, the bible has nothing directly to say about euthanasia [6]. This passage from the bible rang in my head, driving me to search - "Since his days are determined, The number of his months is with You; And his limits You have set so that he cannot pass” - (Job 14:5). Well, as I am often told, the lord works in mysterious ways, and I can’t possibly see how his will is usurped through euthanasia. There seems nothing that says that the load can’t work through the individual, or through a physician, or a family member, in determining the number of days. One could point to “thou shalt not kill", but that must be wrong. Well, it is commonly accepted to be “murder” not kill [7]. The bible sure wouldn’t say “kill” as it seems to be the topic of so much material in the book. No, murder is the right word. Since to be murder, a killing must be illegal, that’s what makes it murder! Since the material in the bible related to the subject is so thin, it must religion working outside the bounds of the Bible. If that’s the case, I don’t see how Christianity can deny euthanasia as a body autonomy right. FamilyAn individual’s family is a critical in this debate. They are critical because in many cases, medical decisions must fall to the family. In the case of Schiavo in Florida we saw an interesting clash of family. The question about the will of the patient was murky to her parents, and crystal clear to her husband. A Living will would have cleared up the mess about her intent, and made clear her choice. I think I will save more on family for another round. Hippocratic Oath Modern[1] http://guides.library.jhu.edu...Hippocratic Oath Greek [2] http://guides.library.jhu.edu...Therapeutic Nihilism[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...Personal Autonomy – legal[4] https://www.law.cornell.edu...Poll - Euthanasia[5] http://www.gallup.com...The Bible and euthanasia[6] https://carm.org...Bible "thou shalt not murder"[7] https://www.biblegateway.com...

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Euthanasia. Content: Contention 1: Personal Freedom and LibertyMy opponent claims an incorrect fact that "the right to die" is Constitutional, but it is not. In the Supreme Court Case Vacco V. Quill in where Brittney Maryland planned to withdraw life support to cause her own death. In the case the Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 decission that the Constitution did NOT include the right to die. Chief Justice Rehnquist was quoted in his ruling, "The distinction comports with fundamental legal principles of causation and intent. First, when a patient refuses life sustaining medical treatment, he dies from an underlying fatal disease or pathology; but if a patient ingests lethal medication prescribed by a physician, he is killed by that medication."[1] You see here that there is a legal difference between letting a patient die and killing a patient by leathally injecting them. My opponent is highly flawed in his argument and we can see that he is refurring to Assisted Suicide, NOT Euthanasia. Assisted Suicide is the refusial of life support with euthanasia is the lethal injecting to end one's life. My opponent brings up an AngelFire gallop poll, but this poll is first flawed because if you follow the link provided by Pro you'll find that there is no background to who was survaded and their backgrounds etc... This is key in this debate, but we'll get more on that later. My opponent states that these people died anyways, but this is obvious as these people live weeks longer if they weren't euthanized as it is their life support. Remember that this debate is about euthanasia not assisted Suicide. Bellow I will clear up some of the confusion between the two. "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. [2] and in Europe and in the Neatherlands." "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." "Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy killing")." [3] Here I also extend across my moral argument about the Whom the Bell tolls and the utiliarianist argument against euthanasia.Contention 2: Doctors and Public OpinionMy opponent's sourcing is scewed in another way and that is it's wording bellow you'll find a chart showing the US's response to a poll question with this wording and you'll find that my opponent's high percentage is only for a more flowery wording of the poll question. As you see above you'll find that when asked due they support "Ending the patient's life by some painless means," does the poll reach that of 70% support, but when asked to "Assist the patient to commit suicide" does it plumet to 51%. You'll find that yes the public overall still barely supports it, but you'll see that the numbers aren't as high as my opponent is asking. [4] We can also see in a study done by the National Institute of Health that a large portion of American minority doctors and doctors tended to have a moral or religious objection to PAS and that's not even including Euthanasia. [5]Contention 3: Oregon Now my opponent brings up close regulation, but I have to once again cross apply my Constructive cass to this argument to once again show that Beligium has done this and regulated this greatly, however, there euthanasia abuse has grown and we have also seen legalization of involuntary and even nonvoluntary euthanasia in Beligium and that's something that my opponent has stated on his own profile that he is against and we can see by supporting said plan that this in turn would be doing something that my opponent doesn't agree with on the subject.Contention 4: ExpenseMy opponent states that the doctors should care for other patients, but we need to remember that these are human beings too and that they also need caring for. They haven't died yet and they shouldn't be killed because their pain is scewing their line of thought which ends up harming the patient in the end. We can only see that we cannot legalize euthanasia for fear of neglecting of the elderly and even the fear of being "released to elsewhere."Sources1. (http://scarinciattorney.com...) 2 (Oregon [Death with Dignity Act 1994] and Washington [2009]), and in Europe in The Netherlands."3. (http://comfortcarechoices.com...) 4. (http://www.gallup.com...) 5. (http://www.researchgate.net...)

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

Title: should euthanasia be legalized Content: Have you committed suicide already assisted by a doctor?:D

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: "...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..." Yes, legalizing Euthanasia would go against an old law... that is the whole point... we are trying to make a new law. Referencing an old law doesn't count as "proof" when the whole purpose of the debate is to create a new law."...doctor who administers it violates the medical profession...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."I'm pretty sure I pointed out that doctors wouldn't be ADVISING suicide if a patient came in requesting it. The doctor would then have an opportunity to help the patient through suicide prevention therapy. That opportunity would not have been available if the patient tried comitting suicide privately. If even suicide prevention therapy doesn't work then the patient's death is inevitable, and there is no problem with a doctor taking the patient's life painlessly, rather than the patient taking his own life in more painful methods like hanging or shooting.

Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: I extend my arguments again.

Title: Euthanasia should become Legalized in the US Content: 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.

Title: Doctor assisted suicide Content: I would like to begin by saying thank you for this debate. I look forward to it and I strongly urge you to listen to my argument. However, I also urge you to reconsider your proposition. I thoroughly believe that doctor assisted suicide (I will refer to it as euthanasia as it is a more appropriate term) should be a viable option for terminally ill patients and patients who would be in crippling pain for the foreseeable future; in fact, it is an option already. However, doctors should not be responsible for assisting in this suicide. It poses many problems both morally and legally. My first contention involves the morals of the situation. You were correct on saying doctors have nice things such as money, prestige, and social status. However, you were not correct in claiming they were “privileges.” If we take a look into the lives of doctor’s, we will notice how difficult it is. The average physician spends 8 years in very detailed study and 11-16 years total of medical training (1). At that point, the large salaries, prestige, and social recognition is earned. It is not a privilege. Physicians spend a great deal of time, money, and energy to develop the skills they need to save lives. Their rewards are certainly not privileges. Furthermore, your argument states that "if doctors have this power, they should have to deal with the consequential responsibility of such power--that is, their decisions should not hinge on their little moral codes; whatever they think is right or wrong should be a non-issue." Besides the fact that doctors have earned this power, these are not “little moral codes” either. In every culture to ever exist, human life has been the #1 priority. Many people are not alright with ending the lives of others, regardless of how or why they are doing it. A recent study found that 69% of physicians object to euthanasia, 18% to permanent sedation, and 5% to PAS (2). This is mainly due to religious and philosophical influences. This is made obvious by the same study. 84% of highly religious physicians are opposed to euthanasia (3). The majority of doctors, and people, are against killing people altogether. These are not "little moral codes." Euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering" by Merriam Webster (4). Killing someone is something that an overwhelming majority of people feel is wrong. We cannot ask doctors to kill people. It is their job to heal, cure, and prevent disease and injury of their patients, not to end their patients lives. Aside from morals, the legality of euthanasia could prove problematic. There is an oath that every doctor takes called the Hippocratic oath. This oaths specifically reads "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect (5)." This means that a doctor may never give a patient a substance that will harm them, nor shall they suggest it. Oaths are legally binding, so doctors are obligated to not provide euthanasia. However, I see that you believe the Hippocratic Oath is "irrelevant and should be changed." I will take the time to remind you exactly what the oath does. It protects the patient, not the doctor. It prevents doctors from committing malpractice and experimentation on patients, it prevents them from having sexual relationships with patients and their families, and more. The Hippocratic Oath has saved so many lives and brought a form of perfection to medicine. It is entirely relevant and always will be. To think it needs changed ignores what doctors had done before the oath. They did experiments on people, harming them and disfiguring them, they accepted bribes to hurt people, and worse. The oath has been one of the most important events in medical history and it has allowed medicine to flourish. We cannot unsubscribe from it. Also, we must consider how this oath keeps people at the doctors. Hippocratic's Oath eeps trust in the medical system. Because of its importance and sheer practicality for protecting patients it keeps people comfortable seeing a physician. Without the Hippocratic Oath, there is little gauruntee that doctors wont commit malpractice. It should not be a responsibilty for doctors to provide this service. I urge you to reconsider your view point. Euthanasia should be an option for the terminally ill and those who are in permanent pain, but it should NOT be a responsibility for doctors to assist in the death of their patients. It runs contrary to the sheer principle of medicine and being a doctor. Therefore, the only viable option is to decide that it is not the responsibilty of doctors to assist in suicide or preform euthanasia. Thank you. Please vote in the negation of this proposal. CITATIONS http://www.learnhowtobecome.org... https://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.med.wisc.edu....PDF http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.medicinenet.com... http://www.amednews.com...

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: 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...

Title: Oregon's 'Death with Dignity' act should be legal among other states Content: First, let me begin by defining what the "Death with Dignity act" actually is. "The Death with Dignity Act allows terminally ill Oregon residents to obtain and use prescriptions from their physicians for self-administered, lethal medications. Under the Act, ending one's life in accordance with the law does not constitute suicide. However, we use 'physician-assisted suicide' because that terminology is used in medical literature to describe ending life through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications prescribed by a physician for that purpose. The Death with Dignity Act legalizes PAS [physician-assisted suicide], but specifically prohibits euthanasia, where a physician or other person directly administers a medication to end another life. "Death with Dignity" re-establishes the Fourteenth Amendment in the constitution. As American citizens we are granted certain unalienable rights that cannot be taken away from us. Section 1 under the Fourteenth Amendment states that "No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Therefore if you are against "Death with Dignity" you are stating that as a citizen of the United States, the government enforces when you can or cannot die. Opposing this act shall be constructed as unconstitutional by removing our civil liberties. This act does not in any way force the patients to suicide, but rather gives them an option of dying with dignity without pain or suffering. "Death with Dignity" allows patients the right to choose As a patient we are granted the right to deny any type of treatment or medical care. As this act is self-inflicted, patients have a "way out" from letting their bodies tear themselves apart. A good example of this would be cancer. Suppose that you have just been informed that your cancer is untreatable and you have only 6 months to live. During the last few months of your life your body will slowly deteriorate and one would be dealt with much severe pain. This act is a way for patients to live their lives while they still physically can and be able to dignify their end. We all die, but there is always a limit as to what physicians and family members can do once a terminally-ill diagnosis is made. It is morally and ethically wrong to let our government dictate our "end of life" matters. This film (Documentary) is a great example of the points I"m covering. Before one argues that there are outside factors that contribute to the "assisted suicide", we must look at the eligibility requirements. To use the Oregon or Washington law, patients must be 18 years old or older, residents of Oregon or Washington diagnosed with a terminal illness with six months or less to live. The patients must be free of any mental health condition, such as depression, which impairs their ability to make health care decisions. Two physicians must examine the patient and confirm the diagnosis and prognosis. Both physicians must determine the patient is capable of making and communicating health care decisions. And at any time may the patient can decide not to go through the process. I strongly urge voters to grant this act among other states so we may choose to end the pain and suffering of these patients in a dignified matter. Sources: http://euthanasia.procon.org... http://www.ushistory.org... http://www.deathwithdignity.org...

Title: Euthanasia - Putting People out of Their Misery Content: 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.

Title: Assisted Suicide/ Euthenasia Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia should be legal Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia Content: Thanks Con.Rebutals: The doctors duty isn't to euthanize Dcotors won't be forced to euthanize patients, similiar to how they aren't forced to perform surgeries. The docotors who do it would do it by choice.Lives are still worth livingEven if I agree to this, I would say that people have the right to choose whether they live or die. As I've shown before, this is lifting the pain from their shoulders. The right to life is a negative right if we don't allow the right to death .“Further, in nearly every country where a form of physician assisted suicide is legal, the vast majority allow the killing of people with mental illness. In the Netherlands--which my opponent cites directly--the mentally ill are often euthanized. In Belgium, the mentally ill are euthanized in order to take their organs. The fact is, whenever you legalize physician assisted suicide, the law eventually evolves into a death-on-demand structure which leads to many people not capable of making these decisions wisely being killed [2]”This calls for the law being enforced more sternly, not the law being withdrawn. By withdrawing it, we force the patients who would have been euthanized to suffer until their death, unless an unexpected event occurs. While if we keep it up, we can help these people.“Further, there is an issue of people in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada being murdered, as they are killed without explicit request. Obviously this is not legal, but the fact is that if it is legal to kill someone intentionally if they ask, it is easy just to put in your records ‘asked for death’ with minimal questioning from the law. In Oregon, the law began fairly successful. For 1/4 of patients asking for death, they received psychiatric care before their decision. They were walked through the process. However, by 2010, this has disintegrated. None of the people killed were told to seek mental care first”As I said before, this calls for a stricter enforcement of the law, as people should be checking with other doctors, which directly violates the procedure. Furthermore, as I had also said before non voluntary deaths occur regardless of whether we make it legal or not. In the study I had cited “Recent pieces by doctors bring excellent points to my opponents argument. When death becomes the answer, doctors see their patients have less faith in medical care. It is well established that people in the medical profession are a source of hope for their patients. To allow death leads to less hope, and it makes them feel unwanted--that at a certain point, life is not worth living. This is, as doctors argue, is one of the largest blows to human dignity. Further, this has led to a decrease in palliative care. Instead of easing pain and making the life worth living, physicians often choose death as a mean to end the pain, instead of attempting to help the patient.” The alternative wouldn’t be very different, as the patients who have pain that can’t be eased by a few pills are still suffering. They’re wondering why they don’t have a right to guide their own life. The patients should be able to choose between pills and death. They would know that their disease isn’t curable anyway, trying to hide it from them won’t help. Economic ImpactsHere my opponent seems to agree that euthanasia would benefit the economy. He brings up that different cuts could be made, but this doesn’t matter. The point is that there’s a benefit to the economy, showing a better way doesn’t take that fact away. Why not impliment multiple cuts?Non voluntary deaths will always occurMy opponent seems to mix “Voluntary” deaths with “non voluntary” deaths. Non voluntary acts of euthanasia will happen regardless of whether it’s legalized or not. It was just pointing out that deaths happening against the patients will are going to occur regardless of whether euthanasia is legalized or not. Now he then shows how the number of deaths from euthanasia are rising. This doesn’t matter, however, as I’ve already shown how euthanasia helps the patients who are in pain. My opponent hasn’t yet fully addressed the arguments given or misunderstands them. I’ve supported my arguments and rebutted his contentions. Good luck to Con, as next round is his final round for arguments.

Title: Assisted suicide should be illegal. Content: "Assisted suicide" refers to "the act of deliberately assisting another person to kill themselves." == A Definitional Note ==The term "assisted suicide" is something of a misnomer. There's no crime called "assisted suicide." I do not argue a legal penalty for patients who seek help in dying. The crime at issue is assisting suicide, and it's targeted solely at those who help another commit suicide. The legal right sought by proponents is the right to assist someone in killing themselves without suffering adverse legal consequences. That said, I'll still use "assisted suicide" as a short-hand description for the crime/right, as a way of deferring to common usage.The term "assisted suicide" is also a misnomer in the sense that it's often confused with "euthanasia." In euthanasia, the doctor kills the patient. In assisted suicide, the doctor assists but the patient is the final causal actor in his or her own death. I don't think the difference will matter much for this debate -- in both, the doctor intentionally helps the patient end his or her life -- but extra clarification always helps.== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss

Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: Firstly, I will address some of the key points against the legalisation of Euthanasia. A common misconception of assisted suicide is that it drastically shortens the life span of the person and that recovery was going to occur in the very near future. However, in a Dutch report about Euthanasia, it was found that the procedure actually only shortened the lifespan of the patients. This proves that Euthanasia is not an easy way out but more of a quicker exit with less pain. Another point against euthanasia is that it goes against having a good quality of life. Actually it does the exact opposite. It often improves the quality of life. For instance, if you have terminal illness you can die at any time and will spend the majority of your remaining life span being scared of death and therefore would not enjoy your life to the extent that you normally would. However, if you knew exactly when you were going to die then that fear would be removed and therefore you are free to enjoy your life to its fullest extent. A quote from a person diagnosed with a rare form of Alzheimer"s, who became an avid campaigner of assisted dying, was that 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." One of the biggest myths of assisted dying is that assisted suicide will lead to pressure for old people to die, but in fact, Oregon, the first state to legalise euthanasia after the law taking effect have had just 341, up until 2008. And the groups mainly labelled as the weaker part of society, the poor, the minority and the elderly are actually the least common group to request assisted suicide. In fact, it"s often the group that are labeled as the least vulnerable members of society, young white men that past often request aid with suicide. Euthanasia rejection is often based on the opinion that it is the "lesser of two evils" in fact, the alternatives to euthanasia are horrific. The case of Kelly Taylor, a young lady who was denied euthanasia, and so starved herself for 19 days. Furthermore, Tony Nicklinson, a white British Male, was denied Euthanasia in both 2010 and 2012, despite being unable to move a single muscle in his body as a sufferer of "locked in" syndrome, a condition often described as "a fate worse than death". Unable to do the job himself or to ask anyone else to do it for him, he died in "indignity and misery" from pneumonia after starving himself for a week. Another myth to do with Euthanasia is that it will open the flood gates for deaths. In the Netherlands, where Euthanasia is legal, there are about 3000 requests to die. That may seem like a considerable amount, but in fact it accounts for just 1.7% of deaths. And that isn't the ones who are accepted. The Netherlands system has made it complex and very difficult to achieve and so just 1/3 of those who apply actually achieve it. Finally, I will address the Hippocratic Oath, which is "do no harm" (a rough summation). This is an ancient guide for doctor"s actions. This is often falsely misinterpreted as "do nothing to harm the patient"s chances of survival but, in fact could quite easily been seen as "don"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable". When a patient is in intense pain or several metal anguish, we do, in fact, harm them more by sustaining their survival then by killing them. In conclusion, it is all about whether we decide to sustain an inevitable and more painful death, or to not sit back and watch someone suffer but to choose to do something about it. Until we stop sitting of the fence and decide to help those in need, the suffering will continue for a long time. Keep calm and vote Pro!! My source: http://listverse.com...

Title: Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill Content: This debate isn't about suicide or the freedom to refuse medical treatment. The issue in this debate is whether euthanasia for the terminally ill benefits or harms society. To prove that euthanasia for the terminally ill benefits society, Pro must not only show that euthanasia offers unique benefits that aren't captured by suicide or the right to refuse medical treatment, but also that these unique benefits outweigh the harms. And legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill imposes significant harms on society. I'll start with Pro's contentions:(1) Pro's first contention confuses things by raising the issue of suffering patients and assisted suicide. The resolution requires that Pro justify euthanasia for all terminally ill patients, not just those that suffer. Thus, Pro's focus on suffering patients is misplaced, as it has no impact on the resolution. Arguing for assisted suicide also has no impact on the resolution. In euthanasia, the doctor kills the patient. In assisted suicide, the doctor assists but the patient is the final causal actor in his or her own death. That means there's greater room for abuse and error in euthanasia, because doctors can kill patients involuntarily or mistakenly. In assisted suicide, doctors cannot kill patients, period. So Pro's arguments for assisted suicide also don't have any impact on the resolution. Finally, the actual substance of Pro's argument is profoundly flawed. Prohibiting euthanasia (or even assisted suicide) doesn't force anyone to suffer; patients are free to commit suicide of their own volition or to refuse medical treatment. Thus, euthanasia or assisted suicide offers no unique benefit to patients who want to end their lives early. (2) Pro's second contention has no impact on the resolution because I admit a right to die. To be sure, Pro says that individuals "should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. " Of course, this is nothing more than Pro's assertion. And it's absurd to say individuals can force anyone of their choosing to kill them. In fact, that conflicts with Pro's "libertarian" position, as it coerces individuals to kill people they might not want to kill. (3) Pro's third contention has no impact on the resolution because it focuses on prolonging inevitable death, which isn't argued. Even if euthanasia is kept illegal, individuals still have the right to commit suicide (ending their suffering) or to refuse medical treatment (bringing their death more quickly). Moreover, Pro offers no reason to accept the Hippocratic Oath. Remember, this debate is about whether euthanasia "should" be recognized as a human right, not whether it "is" recognized under existing medical norms. No matter how many laws or medical codes allow euthanasia, the question is still whether those laws or medical codes are right or wrong. Pro offers no reason to accept this oath. (4), (5), and (6) Pro's fourth, fifth, and sixth contention have no impact on the resolution. They're a bunch of bare assertions with no relation to euthanasia. I'm not arguing for life-prolonging care when someone has refused medical treatment. On the contrary, I argue in support of the right to commit suicide and the right to refuse treatment. And I might even let assisted suicide be legalized if there's good arguments for it. I'll now make a few arguments against euthanasia:(1) Euthanasia drowns our privacy in safeguards, because it requires a transparent process to check for abuse. The deathbed -- like the bedroom -- should remain free from state intrusion. Even Pro said "death is a private matter . .. the state and other people have no right to interfere. " Well, that's precisely what's going to happen if euthanasia is legal. The deathbed scene will need to be recorded. Dying will become a public event. The result is less privacy and less freedom about our own deaths. (2) What's to stop involuntary euthanasia? This is precisely what happened in the Netherlands after they legalized euthanasia for the terminally ill; they legalized non-consensual euthanasia a few years later. This is one of those things where a slippery slope has been proven by the evidence. This reason this is likely is because euthanasia, voluntary or involuntary, is justified on the same logic. If we follow this slope to its logical conclusion, physicians would be forced to kill patients if the value of keeping them alive is less than than the costs of medical care. (3) There's a real danger of abuse without sufficient safeguards. And even with safeguards, there's still a possibility for abuse. There's aslo 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). (4) There's a possibility of discrimination/abuse against minorities. Pro hints at this possibility in his sixth contention. The reality is that minority cancer patients are three times less likely than nonminority patients to receive adequate palliative care. Blacks are 3.5 times more likely than whites to have one of their limbs amputated. And minorities receive worse AIDS treatment. [1] There's no reason to believe this won't translate to euthanasia. For instance, lack of adequate palliative care means more suffering, and more suffering means a higher likelihood of euthanasia. The law shouldn't create conditions that disenfranchise certain groups of people for arbitrary reasons. (5) Euthanasia transforms the role of doctors. They become killers instead of healers. And in killing patients, doctors santify both suicide and intentional killing. In effect, doctors become priests, granting absolution for a patient's desire to end their life. 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. (6) Legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill undermines human equality in critical ways. First, by limiting it to certain people -- specifically, the terminallly ill -- it 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. Thus, Pro asks that we enforce a distinction between persons not with respect to social security or education or other government services, but with respect to the most fundamental question of all, namely, whose lives should be treated as inviolable under law and whose may be subject to intentional destruction by others. This creates a second class of citizens. Furthermore, legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill suggestst that human life has instrumental value. But the only way to justify equal protection of the law is by recognizing that human life is intrinsically valuable. 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? And besides, Pro's criteria for deciding who is expendable and who isn't is arbitrary (who decides which lives are worthy preservation and thus the full protection of the law? why are some lives unworthy of protection? ).

Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: I'm not going to argue that point, though I could, I actually meant to argue attempting suicide, which we can both agree on. The case of Tony Nicklinson is definitely a sad one, however, it was not a necessity for him to die. Stephen Hawking, like Tony Nicklinson is confined to wheelchair, however he overcomes it, and continues to be one of the greatest scientists of the era. Obviously Mr. Nicklinson would have to of been struggling from some sort of depression after the traumatic event, it is only natural. Killing him would end his potential. Also, new therapies, medicines, and techniques are being invented everyday which could of helped him greatly. He did not need death, he wanted it. He FELT as if it was impossible; he FELT as if it was unbearable; he FELT as if there was no hope, but there was, and it was ended. Those who overcome are always happy they did. Euthanasia and Suicide are closely related topics. You can have suicide without help, but in order for assisted suicide to occur, you have to allow them to kill you, which is ultimately just another form of suicide. However, in cases where they cannot communicate with you in anyway: let's say a family decides it's time for a rich family member who's been in a coma to die in order to inherit money for their own benefit. - Very Flawed. In cases where it is their choice to allow someone to kill them (practical suicide): definitely opens the door to suicide. Mass Euthanasia and Attempted Suicide would occur, because it is now legal. The law makes people think about suicide before it occurs, removing it would make suicide easier. Not only that, but faked suicides would be easier to make. Murders would obviously be easier to make if they claim it was an "assisted suicide". Perfect opportunity for criminals. Suicide has devastating effects on family members, can tear them apart, and they will never be the same. It can be a very selfish act. By the way, I would love to hear, what method would make killing your grandfather (or some other relative) "PERFECTLY comfortable" for you? Assuming you would never feel any remorse.

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

Title: That we should legalise Euthanasia for terminal illnesses Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional Content: My opponent wished to ask me why it should be a medical professional and not a member of the government that evaluates each case of planned euthanasia and decides whether or not to permit it , he then proceeded to sum up the exact reasons as to why it should be done in such a way! As explained by my opponent, the job of a doctor is to 'prevent their [patients] life from deteriorating and to make their lives better.' Therefore, a doctor will ensure that every option which could save their patients life or increase their standard of living is taken before finally allowing the patient to end their life with the help of another person. I.E. to undergo euthanasia. You attempt to claim that suicide and assisted suicide are the same thing: 'Euthanasia is no different from suicide.' I am quite sure I can prove that you are wrong. Suicide is defined as the act of killing oneself, whilst euthanasia is defined as the act of the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Therefore there should be no need to worry about young people considering euthanasia in order to stop their suffering at the hands of bullies, because that would not be viewed by a medical professional as a valid medical reason as it is, in fact, not a medical reason at all. Indeed, the only people who would meet the criteria and be allowed to legally be assisted with suicide are those suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, as suggested by the definition of euthanasia. Your penultimate paragraph does not seem to be on the subject of the debate at all. If an individual is suffering from an incurable and painful illness, how can their life be made better? Perhaps in the short term the pain could be relieved slightly, but would you rather die in agony when you have no choice or die with your family and friends in relative comfort before the disease makes you unable to communicate with your loved ones or the pain becomes so unbearable that you become angry with those who mean the most to you, how would you wish to spend your last moments? Your turn.

Title: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill Content: 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.

Title: Should euthanasia be legal Content: Like anything else there would be some legal safeguards for both ends of the event. If you wanted to have the job done professionally in an assisted method there would be a legal contract. As for youths no contract can be legal until the participant is at least 18 yrs of age. As for having a bad day not many people seriously consider suicide due to a bad day,week or what ever. Most people who seriously consider suicide have suffered for an extended amount of time and have reached a point where they just don't want to suffer anymore or feel that there is no other answer. I think for healthy people there should be a psychological evaluation prior to the legal documentation to have your life ended in an assisted way. I know the suicide of healthy people is morally tough to accept, still is should be that person's right. Just before Christmas I lost a cousin to suicide she suffered from depression for many years. It saddens me that she felt the way she did but on the other hand she ended her suffering which plagued her for years. It's bitter sweet.

Title: Legalization of Euthanasia Content: =Rebuttal="I see no reason why government run euthanasia centers would have to take this oath." - Euthanasia is also known as "Physician-assisted suicide" because doctors are the ones doing the killing. Since doctors are the ones performing Euthanasia, a violation of the Hippocratic Oath is very important. Unless my Opponent is advocating someone other than doctors doing the killing, which carries extreme implications."In a way euthanasia is in fact helping the terminally ill. Instead of refusing them their wish to die we are allowing them to choose for themselves. Instead of saying no we are giving a choice."- using that logic we would also be helping depressed people by killing them. Furthermore, Euthanasia gets abused, as the doctor Herbert Hend tells us (speaking of Euthanasia in the Netherlands): "Concern over charges of abuse led the Dutch government to undertake studies of the practice in 1990 and 1995. Many violations of the guidelines were evident from these two studies. For example, 60% of Dutch cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia are not reported, which by itself makes regulation impossible. The most alarming concern to arise from the Dutch studies has been the documentation of several thousand cases a year in which patients who have not given their consent have their lives ended by physicians. About a quarter of physicians stated that they had "terminated the lives of patients without an explicit request" from the patient to do so, and a third more of the physicians could conceive of doing so."[1]Euthanasia empowers doctors, not patients."Than make the process a multiple appointment process. There is probably a reason those who didn't get an intervention went through with it more. Perhaps they don't have anyone to hold an intervention for them." - Guidelines such as these could not be enforced, again take the Netherlands as an example according to BBC: "The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked."[2]Since Holland is the only country to legalize Euthanasia, this sets a historical precednt of abuse. My Opponent must show how this will not happen in the United States.=His answers to Cross Examination=1. However unless everyone was subjected to intense physcological analysis (not likely, especially considering how my Opponent spoke of saving money as part of his case) you can never truly know if they're insane. Example, the case that legalized Euthanasia in the Netherlands was a woman who wanted death because her family had died. If such a traumatic experience like that does NOT cause insanity I don't know what is. A want of death is a sign of insanity, an acceptance of death is a sign of wisdom. Let's not confuse this.2. Now we have someone else deciding on a persons right to life. Even close family members should not have the right to terminate someones existence.3. Ok, I thought that's how it would work, just clarifying.4. Yes, but how are these deductions made? Who makes them and what qualifications do they need?5. What do you mean no? The sanctity of life is a fundamental value in our society, indeed it is our most sacred value, how can this be outweighed by your impacts?6. So just people hired by the government to perform these Euthanasias?7. So basically it's also justified to kill a suicidal person evenb if they're perfectly healthy?8. So we are trusting the government to decide who is or isn't fit for life? Look what happened last time a government ran Euthanasia, in Nazi Germany: "The so-called "Euthanasia" program was National Socialist Germany's first program of mass murder, predating the genocide of European Jewry by approximately two years. The effort represented one of many radical eugenic measures which aimed to restore the racial "integrity" of the German nation. It endeavored to eliminate what eugenicists and their supporters considered "life unworthy of life"' [3]Governments, all governments, cannot be trusted with this power.9. The Hippocratic Oath which outlines what doctors are supposed to do is against Euthanasia, so are doctors supposed to disobey their code of ethics whenever it suits them?=His case=C1."People who live in great pain and suffering would have a way to get out of their pain and misery and die with dignity" -you speak of dignity quite alot, so I really must ask, how exactly is Euthanasia "dignified"? To me it seems like the easy way out, not dignified at all."Patients literally scream down the halls their desire for death."-same with mental hospitals, should we kill them too?C2.1. No solvency, money would still be spent on Euthanasia in the "government run centers".2. Valuing money over the sanctity of life, clear miscalculation in my opinion.3. His plan is likely to be more expensive with his "multiple appointments" requiring Physciartrists, Doctors, ect.Souces1. Hendin, Herbert. "Legalizing Euthanasia Eliminates Patient Autonomy and Reduces Quality of Care." Rest in comments.

Title: Euthanasia Content: "Assisted suicide might start with the terminally ill, but eventually, there will be pressure to extend that right to the physically disable, mentally handicapped, the depressed, or the aged" (Calgary, Herald). Herald makes the point that if euthanasia is legalized, it will soon lose the parameters that are entitled with it. In order for euthanasia to take place, you must be severely ill or injured with the knowledge that your life will never be worth living again. If euthanasia is made legal, it will start with those people that are ill and injured, but it will escalate towards those that suffer mentally, to those who are aging, and to those who could declare depression with valid reasons not to live. Suicide is never the right choice, legalizing it will only make it the way out for everybody even if they have the chance to live a fulfilled life. Euthanasia will promote suicide if made legal. "Human Life Must Be Valued." Calgary Herald. 08 Aug 2011: A.8. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 16 Oct 2013.

Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: He has the potential hope for an advance in science. Stephen Hawking continues to learn new things to make his career successful, not everything he talks about he knew before he was diagnosed with ASL. Obviously Tony has the ability to learn, or to at least write a book. He could of began to take a more positive perspective on life instead of looking at his life cynically. There are those who sympathize with him who have turned it around. The family however, are knowingly taking him to the place where he WILL die. They have to live with that. Honestly, the tragedy of Tony is one of the more extreme cases. However, the legalization of Euthanasia is a LOT broader than that. If you were to have a baby, and then as it grows up, you learn it is a special needs child, and IF euthanasia were legal, then you would be able to kill that child so that it wouldn't have to "endure" such a life. They would have that choice taken from them, and special needs children are no less of people than we are. You have to understand that euthanasia gives the family members and doctors more power over the life of someone who hasn't the ability to choose. There is also no proper way to perform Euthanasia. Perhaps there may be a way to help only those with the most abnormally extreme cases in the future (such as Tony), since he was beginning to be in pain, but the legalization of Euthanasia as a whole is an absolutely horrible idea.

Title: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering Content: Framework He begins by attempting to demonstrate that the government doesn’t always make the best of inventions and they don’t always turn out like they are intended to turn out. He refers to the guillotine. My framework clearly states that the government don’t have a right to interfere in death, his claim that the government have made failed inventions is irrelevant because I did not say that the government would control assisted suicide (A.S), in fact I claimed the opposite. If A.S remains illegal then the government are interfering with our deaths. This contradicts possibly the most iconic libertarian view. The belief in a smaller, less powerful government. It will do the opposite of enlarging the government. Legalizing A.S will limit the government’s control over death and ultimately agree with the libertarian view. His framework goes against the libertarian belief in a smaller government and since his framework (supposedly) coincides with libertarianism it is self contradictory and my framework remains superior. Definitions Euthanasia and A.S are different - it is possible for somebody to be pro A.S and con euthanasia. This is not the case for me but this debate is in regards to A.S - not euthanasia. In this section, I will clarify the definitions and show why his contentions are invalid since they are arguing against a different resolution to the one proposed in R1 by me. I will restate the definition here; we can compare it to euthanasia. Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Let us compare this to euthanasia: Euthanasia is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately killing a patient because the patient wanted to be killed (1). The difference is clearly significant because in A.S the doctor is not a murderer. In euthanasia the doctor is. This is why there are issues with involuntary euthanasia since in this the doctor is ultimately the killer and so they sometimes make the decision to kill patients involuntarily. In A.S the patient is the killer so the only way that it can possibly be involuntary is if the doctor forces the patient to kill themselves rather than actually killing the patient. The legalization of euthanasia would create a larger difference in the doctor’s job. Euthanasia empowers the doctor to carry out the patient’s wish to end their lives. There is a key difference between that level of empowerment, and acquiescing to the request of a patient for the correct and safe tools to commit suicide. Doctors prescribe regularly but they do not end the patient’s lives by their own hands in A.S. Thus, you are not expanding the role that they’re currently playing unlike euthanasia. This key difference that must be established. He is not arguing for his position. This resolution is affirmed. I will now show how my his contentions do not impact upon the resolution individually. R1: Unreported Euthanasia & Euthanasia without consent. These statistics clearly show that many euthanasia occurrences are involuntary. I will now show you that this is not the case for A.S. Since euthanasia is a much larger issue than A.S is (and there is less controversy), there are more statistics regarding worldwide statistics. There are, however, smaller scale statistics regarding A.S: “In Oregon USA it has been legal for terminally ill, mentally competent adults to have an assisted death for 18 years. In those 18 years there have been no cases of abuse and no calls to extend the law beyond terminally ill adults.” (2) The key term that is most significant in this quote is that the cases of ‘A.S’ have been carefully monitored and regulated and after 18 years of Oregon A.S there has never been an incident of abuse. This quote should be considered preferable over his case since mine is relevant to the resolution whilst his refers to a different topic that doesn’t impact upon the resolution. R2: The Slippery Slope Argument This is also used in terms of euthanasia however I will still respond to this because the argument can be applied in terms of A.S. I have always viewed the slippery slope argument as a quite poor argument that can be applied in a number of circumstances in an almost identical way. Everything can go down a slippery slope. What we need to do is put down a clear boundary. You could argue that there is a slippery slope from eating a lamb chop to eating a human being. You could argue that there is a slippery slope from pushing somebody to killing somebody. The slippery slope argument is poor and can happen anywhere. I will use a relevant example. People murder. Does that mean that we never should have established rules against murder? The same applies to A.S. I doubt that there will be many cases of this right being abused. The chances of right being abused is low and there is evidence from places that currently have assisted suicide legalized - Oregon. It is the continuation of this contention that is fatal to his case. He states that we are transforming the role of doctors into killers. I have ‘ironically’ come across that argument every time I have debated the topic. He is mixing up the terms A.S and euthanasia. In A.S the doctor provides the patient with access to a quick and effective suicide, which empowers the patient with the decision to use it, allowing the patient to then harmlessly kill themselves if they wish to do so. The doctor is not a killer, the doctor makes sure that the method is safe. He defines euthanasia when it was agreed that we are arguing for A.S - this was clearly defined in R1. I will provide a statistical rebuttal to this claim. From the same source as him: “53% of physicians answered yes or probably yes to the question: "Would it have been all right, upon request from the patient, to intentionally prescribe drugs so the patient could end his or her life by overdose?" (3) His statistics are not as clear as he stated them to be. It was specifically about the withdrawal of life support (3). This is not A.S. R3: Self Ownership & Sickness He seems to be interconnecting his contentions. This is a problematic since if one of the contentions that is interconnected is refuted the rest of it falls apart. His source is the right to life source. This is a bias source that evidently will not provide both sides of the argument. I refute his case. As clearly defined at the beginning of my argument, A.S and euthanasia are separate issues and should not be generalized as the same thing. Euthanasia has been demonstrated as something that can lead to involuntary usage however A.S is different as I have demonstrated through my R2 contentions and in this rebuttal. His incident is related to euthanasia so it is invalid. In A.S the patient ultimately kills themselves. The patient was in a vegetative state. In this state an A.S could not have been performed simply because the patient must be able to conduct this themselves. Also, the resolution uses the word: ‘suffering’. This patient was in a vegetative state and clearly was not suffering - merely unable to think or act. The resolution also requires the patient to be in a correct mental state of mind. This patient was clearly in no condition to be making an informed decision. His self determination argument refers to euthanasia and it isn’t actually an offense to his case. He states the following: “ 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.” This is not a reason to not legalize A.S. It is like abortion, many pro-abortion members of society won’t necessarily want the legalization of abortion so that they can have one. They usually advocate the legalization of abortion because they want women to have the option. If you put his argument into this context it makes more sense. In an abortion debate, you cannot say that abortion is not permissible because over 50% will choose not to have an abortion. This would be a weak argument and this is without the further mitigations that he has been restrained by, due to the fact that he is arguing against euthanasia rather than A.S. The option to A.S is important without the legalization of A.S the law treats the dying as irrational individuals who don’t know what they want, relegating them to the status of children. That is extremely problematic, especially for him since he is a libertarian that opposes government intervention. He continues by quoting an anti-euthanasia advocate. The key word: ‘anti-euthanasia’ He has misunderstood the resolution of the debate and cannot differentiate between euthanasia and A.S. He states: “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 [regards] to others.” This is a resolutional misunderstanding. The resolution in R1 says: ‘mentally stable’. His argument relies on the patient being mentally unstable however the resolution specifically says mentally stable. He continues: “So it [matters] not the level of pain the person is [experiencing] as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society.” This argument is unsourced. I have been provided with no reason as to how it harms society and I have been given no reason to believe that it does. Even if it does harm society, it is the typical libertarian view that humans should have the option to choose. Conclusion P1: To win this debate he had to prove that A.S should not be legal. P2: He argued against euthanasia C1: He is not winning this debate (meeting their BOP) P1: To win this debate I had to prove that A.S should be legal. P2: I argued that A.S should be legalized. C1: I am winning this debate (meeting my BOP). Sources in comments.

Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: ASL and locked-in syndrome are very different. Hawking was able to prepare himself before the more severe symptoms of motor neurone disease kicked in. Tony had a stroke and was incapacitated immediately afterwards. He couldn't write a book on his own, he would constantly need someone there to write it for him, all of his independence, what it means to be a human was just taken away from him so violently, he had every single right to die. The family are now having to live with the fact that Tony starved himself to death whilst suffering from pneumonia and locked-in-syndrome. Imagine your mother, father, brother or sister doing that. Imagine what it must be like going to bed at night knowing that when you wake up they will have had 12 hours of loneliness on top of all that pain they endured through the night. It would be absolutely awful. You would much rather they were taken to a clinic and had a painless, dignified, gentle death. Isn't that so much nicer? Not even the Republicans would be stupid enough to legalise euthanasia of children because they have special needs. Euthanasia will be HEAVILY regulated, it works in Switzerland. And children under the age of 15 wouldn't be allowed to be euthanised, as in Switzerland. We're not allowing doctors and parents, husbands, wives, sons and daughters to just go an pull the plug on their rich relatives. We are giving people in pain, both physically and mentally, the chance to end their ordeal. If you award some people the right to die, you have to award it to everyone else, too. It isn't fair to say that families will euthanise rich grandparents to get their inheritance, what kind of people do you think we are? Usually, when they get married, men and women will choose when they want life support equipment to be turned off. Most people don't want to live through locked-in-syndrome, so will choose to die if that is an option. The system works in Switzerland, there is no reason why it can't work in the UK and (by the looks of how you spell 'legalise') in North America. Thank you very much for an enjoyable debate!

Title: Assisted suicide Content: Legalizing euthanasia would allow more open family dialogue on the choice.

Title: Death: Should There Be A Choice Content: 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...

Title: Euthanasia Should Be Legal. Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia Should Be Legal. Content: Euthanasia is legal in Texas, Oregon, and leaning towards legal in California. Gallup Poll shows that 80% of American agree Euthanasia should be legal (http://en.wikipedia.org...). So Technically Euthanasia is MOSTLY illegal but not completely. However, Euthanasia should be illegal because no law can be made that is perfect enough to ensure no abuses of Euthanasia will exist. 1. Many scenarios can occur where the ill can ultimately be manipulated by family, friends, or outside third parties to ask for Euthanasia. Not to mention that doctors would be receiving money for their work in Euthanasia. Money corrupts people and many scenarios can occur where greed leads to the murder of a human being disguised as Euthanasia. Legalization of Euthanasia would be permissible if all Men had integrity, honor, and compassion for one another. Then their would be absolute guarantee that abuses in the system would not exist. Unfortunately greed, malice, and selfishness do exist in our society. These flaws of man make it impossible for a system of assisted suicide to work flawlessly, and no law can be crafted that can produce a system absent of these flaws. Once you realize the reality of flawed human character and understand how that will breed abuses in the system it becomes a matter of how much we value Human life as a society. 2. You must trust the Government. Many do not trust government and for good reason. Politicians accept money from lobbyists and and create law to benefit those interests. This is a legal practice in Washington. They have written law in a way that is counter-productive to the legislation process. So can the congress pass law that will be counter-productive or corrupt in the case of Euthanasia. Once passed into law, Euthanasia can transform through amendments and interpretation. So years into the future a government can turn Euthanasia into a way of control or manipulation against its people. Like the Bush administration who redefined "Torture" as "Pressure" and we now have soldiers who water board detainees, force them into stress positions, or sexually humiliate and degrade them. By enacting legislation giving the power to kill in a society of flawed men is very dangerous and risky.

Title: Should euthanasia be legal Content: Even at the age of 18 kids do not have the life experience to know that things get better. If a person no longer wants to live they should seek therapy, counselling, and most likely be put on medication. Depression is a disorder, a chemical imbalance in the brain. Anti-depressants work to gradually increase serotonin and dopamine levels which pulls you out of depression. The assisted suicide of healthy people is not "morally hard to accept" how could it be when it goes against morals? By allowing assisted suicide to be legal the entire mental health work force would change. People already seeking therapy could then be told things like "We're in our fourth session now and I haven't noticed any changes I'm allowing you to kill yourself, thanks for trying." If people have a way out, why would they try to make themselves better?

Title: Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill Content: Apologies for the late response. I was almost finished typing this up and my laptop ran out of battery, none of it saved so I've been forced to retype it. I'll start with the defense of my contentions. (1) Whilst, it is true that not all terminally ill patients suffer, the issue cannot be completely dismissed as irrelevant. The issue of suffering does affect terminally ill patients and I do not doubt that there are terminally ill patients who do not suffer however I do believe that the issue still has relevance to this debate. Just because an issue does not affect everyone, this does not mean that it has no significance. There are similarities between assisted suicide and euthanasia, except with assisted suicide religious questions are more likely to be raised. In assisted suicide the patient is ultimately the killer of themselves, whereas it is a controversial issue on whether or not euthanasia (where the doctor ultimately kills the patient) is considered to be suicide - as a result of this euthanasia is by far a better option. The legalization of euthanasia will benefit a much larger group of people than it will if assisted suicide is legalized. It is controversial whether or not people are free to commit suicide. I agree and know for a fact that there are no charges for the failure to commit suicide in the UK and USA however, I cannot say the same for other countries. Since this debate is not specific to anywhere in the world, this argument is invalid and has no impact on the resolution. To back up this point, not only is it illegal in specific countries, it is also illegal in specific religions (e.g Christianity). (2) This argument has been misinterpreted by my opponent. My opponent has accepted the full resolution of this debate and as a result of this, this means that they accept that the person has had full mental health checks. This ultimately means that they can think properly and understand situations properly. I never said that anyone should be allowed to force people to do so. I said that they should be able to choose who kills them, but if the person refuses then it is unlikely that they will choose to force them to so. By that statement, my opponent has missed my main point which states that they should be able to determine when they should die. This does not conflict with the libertarian position since my opponent has just made a misinterpretation of my point. (3) As I have said previously, in specific religions and parts of the world suicide is not legal and it is also extremely difficult to commit suicide since most hospitals carefully monitor patients and do not allow them to just walk out of the hospital or jump out of the window. Given that these people have been checked (mentally) then it will be difficult for them to refuse medication and let themselves die - even if they are not religious and they are in a country that allows them to do this. (4), (5), and (6) Since my opponent has not refuted any of these points individually, I will use this part of my defense to comment on the refusal of medical treatment. Medical treatment is not always available (especially for terminal illnesses with no cure). The treatment is usually pain relief and without this their lives will not shorten in any significant way. In fact, it is probable that their lives will be prolonged due to the immense pain (in some circumstances) - this will cause the time passing to feel longer than it actually is. I know that my opponent has said that they do not feel like they need to respond to the points made regarding suffering patients because this is not all terminally ill patients however I would like to see my opponent's alternative for what they would do for suffering patients (who will live for the next 20 years, for example) who are begging to die. What would you do? Rebuttals (1) Death, like life is not entirely a private matter. The government intervenes with our lives - from the moment that we are born, we are constantly debating the pros and cons of state intervention in our lives. Whether we like it or not, we need the Government and depend on them. The government funds our education for under 16s for free. They help with health (free in the UK). Neither of these is free of the state or those people around us. We elect a government to help us to make moral decisions. The government provides the regulations and the security. Not everyone will have the right to euthanasia. (2) No, it is not the case that you always go down a slippery slope. Everything can go down a slippery slope. What we need to do is put down a clear boundary. You could argue that there is a slippery slope from eating a lamb chop to eating a human being. (3) Again, there is a possibility for abuse in everything. People always break laws. We have laws against murder and theft. Just because people break these laws it doesn't mean that we should abandon them completely. (4) I come from the UK and this is not the case. As I have mentioned on multiple occasions throughout this rebuttal - this debate is not specific to any country, state or area. These statistics are false in other places. I request that you keep your arguments nonspecific to any specific place. (5) You state that euthanasia transforms doctors into killers. This is true - however not using euthanasia is making doctors torturers. Torture is worse than murder and I am sure that this can be agreed upon by both me and my opponent. If you know that you are going to die in 3 months and you know that death is a fact would you want to live? There may be a 0.1% chance of survival but do you want to take that chance? Watching your family and yourself being tortured (both emotionally and physically). (6) It doesn't create 2nd class citizens. It promotes rights for all under certain conditions. Equality is not everyone being the same. Equality is being offered the same rights. I didn't say that doctors should be able to say: "Autism. Lets kill him. " for example. I said that people who have no quality of life and know that they will die should be able to have the right to choose. That is very different from making disabled people and people with a low IQ be killed. IQ is insignificant and irrelevant. Steven Hawkings approves of this theory and due to the character limit I will provide a source to what he said. Conclusion To conclude, I believe that I am winning this debate for a number of reasons. a) My opponent has attempted to dismiss many of my points as irrelevant. I have proven that they are in fact very relevant to the debate and since he has provided no actual rebuttals to these points I am winning on those. b) I have not dismissed any of his points and have refuted all of them. c) I have defended my arguments and have refuted his arguments as well.d) I am the only one of the 2 of us to incorporate sources into our arguments. This makes my argument more credable for voters when reading this debate.Sources http://www.goodreads.com...

Title: Human euthanasia is viable option for palliative care Content: Euthanasia, assisted suicide, should be legal in all 50 states.

Title: euthanasia Content: My opponent may be correct in saying it is a moral ambiguity, but my opponent is not being forced to undergo euthanasia or participate in it. It is a moral question that can only be answered by the terminally ill and suffering. It is not to be decided by anybody else, not their doctors, not their family, not the law. It is a personal decision to decide to end one's suffering. I have answered all the questions my opponent has claimed to be too dangerous to be implemented. Belgium[1], the Netherlands[2] and other countries allow for assisted suicide or euthanasia under certain conditions, mostly; - An incurable and terminal illness, with untreatable suffering, - Approval from a regulatory commission and/or numerous doctors, and - A healthy mind to decide on euthanasia as approved by a mental professional. At all times, the patient can reverse the decision to terminate their life, even up to the euthanasia being administered. Devices such as a euthanasia deliverance machine[3] can be used so that the patient can initiate their own death once it is set up and supervised by a physician. Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Estonia, Albania, and the US states of Washington, Oregon and Montana[4] where it has worked for years and is approved by the populace, recognised to be a safe and accountable way for terminally ill patients who are suffering pain from an incurable disease can die with dignity by their own conscience. [1] http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] (extra video) http://www.youtube.com...

Title: should disabled have the right to suicide Content: Assisted suicide, also known as Euthanasia, is a delicate topic. While I concede that there are many moral arguments on the side of the pro side, there are often factors that are not taken into account when debating Euthanasia. My opponent has brought up the pain argument. Yes, I agree that many disabled and terminally ill patients experience extraordinary pain. However, modern medicine has the ability to control pain. A person who seeks to kill him or herself to avoid pain does not need legalized assisted suicide but a doctor better trained in alleviating pain.

Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: 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...

Title: Euthanasia should be legal Content: 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

Title: Personal suicide should be legal. Content: My opponent appears to be dumbfounded over my use of the words 'personal suicide', so I should clarify. I used those words specifically to eliminate the chance of so-called 'assisted suicide' or euthanasia or any other such variance on the word 'suicide' entering the debate. I hope this clarifies. 1. -------------------- "It's not like we actually punish failed suicide atemptees. We rehabilitate them. That way they can continue as a normal member of society. " First, if you think that's the Government's business, then that's fine. We can rehabilitate without ridiculous laws. Second, suicide is not always an act that needs rehabilitation. If I am tired of living, why should the Government have a say in whether or not I should live or die? It has nothing to do with them. "The reason it is also a crime to successfully commit suicide is because that symbolizes the wrongness of it. The majority of people define right and wrong as what they see in the law books. Giving suicide legal repercussions is the best way to discourage it. It's not the punishment that does the discouraging (because there isn't really a punishment), it's the simple fact that it is law. " This is basically saying that suicide is inherently wrong, so we make a law against it to show everyone how 'wrong' it is. Aside from the obvious circularity of this argument, the problem here is that suicide is not inherently wrong, for the reasons I gave in my first round and for many other reasons. My opponent must show why suicide is inherently wrong before we start concluding that a law should be instilled to prevent it. --------------------- 2. "Our government is based off of social contract. Social contract states that all humans have the natural and inalienable right to life. An inalienable right is one that can only be taken away by the one who gives it. In the case of life that is either God, Nature, or Chance. Thus the only entities justified in taking human life is either God, Nature, or Chance. Thus one person cannot rightfully take their own life. Because of this it is perfectly logical that suicide is illegal in a society based on social contract. " Well, I certainly don't know where my opponent got his definition for 'inalienable right to life', but I assure you it has nothing to do with God, Nature or Chance. The phrase 'Right to Life' is from the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and I quote: === "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. " [1] === My opponent has clearly confused the 'right' to do something with the 'obligation' to do something. When a police officer tells you that you've got the 'right to remain silent', this doesn't mean 'shut up! '. It means IF YOU CHOOSE to remain silent, you may. What it also says is that NOBODY has the right to make you talk if you don't wish. We can draw a simple parallel between this case and the case of the 'right to live'. We have the right to live IF WE CHOOSE to continue doing so. NOBODY has the right to make us live if we don't wish to. This is basic human rights we are talking here. ------------------- 3. "Suicide is more than selfish. It is a manifestation of one's ignorance. " Be that as it may indeed, this is not a reason to make it against the law. In this day and age, with all we know, I find it a massive manifestation of a person's ignorance to believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Would you condone making that train of thought illegal? I certainly wouldn't. "Those who commit suicide are selfish because they deny the right of every non-suicidal person to say their life is also hard, when in fact everybody has a difficult life. A suicidal person thinks themselves above the rest of the population. " What the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks are you talking about man! ?! Every 'non-suicidal' person can say whatever they want about their life. "You cannot expect the affected family to accept that person's suicide with dignity. They were just severed from a very close relationship and it leaves that person with a gap in their soul. It is like expecting a person to part from their perfectly good limbs without objection. " You are saying that somebody should endure with a life they've tired of because you have a personal attachment to them. Again, this is the very definition of 'selfish'. Because it has the potential to hurt people is not a good reason to forbid the action. Indeed, forbidding suicide is an attempt to inflict pain, to continue somebody's suffering. Once again, we have the RIGHT to live, but not the OBLIGATION. Nobody has the right to force death OR life upon us. I thank my opponent and await his rebuttal. [1] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice Content: 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...

Title: Euthanasia Content: 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.

Title: Euthanasia should be Illegal Content: 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.