Debate Tournament: Round 1 Act 2---- Butterfly vs Ed

[USF Sam]

TOPIC: Euthanasia… Mercy or Murder?

Euthanasia is defined by Webster’s as “The act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” Proponents ask “How is it right that if my dog is terminal and in pain I can do the kind thing and put her to sleep, but if my mother is slowly dying in agony then she has to suffer?” Opponents claim that euthanasia is just another form of murder.

The root question to this debate is: "Should euthanasia be legally permitted?"

Butterfly, you may lead off. Pick a side and state your case.

Ed, you will go second and take whichever case Butterfly does not. You will also get the benefit of having the last word.

Three posts per person, alternating. Limit 300 words per post. Quoting your opponent does not count against your 300 words.

There will be NO OTHER POSTS in this thread except for Butterfly, Ed and myself until after the debate results are announced.

Butterfly, the floor is yours. ​

 

[Butterfly]

I believe euthanasia should be legalised. Every person should have the right to end their life should they choose to do so.

Currently a mother have the right to terminate the life of her unborn child, but that same woman would not have the right to terminate her OWN life if she were to be terminally ill. The argument for abortion is that the mother has the right to decide what happens within her own body, where is that right when it comes to voluntary euthanasia?

Millions of people across the world make the decision to euthanize a suffering pet every year. Is the message that animals, who can not speak for themselves have the right not to suffer indefinitely, but a consenting human should suck it up and live with it for as long as the medical fraternity can possibly drag their miserable existence out for? Quality of life for animals, not for humans?

At what point do we draw the line of medical intervention and allow a person the right to go peacefully into the ever after by their own choosing? Is it fair to those suffering, and their loved ones to extend their lives merely so that they may suffer even more?

 

[USF Sam]

Ed, the floor is open to your rebuttal.

NOTE: Butterfly's edit of 4:13 EST is approved. No further edits will be allowed.

 

[USF Sam]

BUMP

ED, it is your turn.

 

[edgray]

I’m afraid your reasoning is way off the mark. Firstly, the comparison with abortion is false: the mother is deciding not to end her own life, but the potential of life that she created that is not fully developed. Their right is to determine whether or not that life, not theirs, is permitted to come to fruition.

Your pet analogy too doesn’t apply here either. The pet isn’t deciding the end of it’s life, the human owner is. That’s not euthanasia. Euthanasia is a person deciding that they should die. And, in the same way that no one person decides on their own right to be born, no one has the right to decide when they die.

If euthanasia were legalised, the decision to end one’s life is being made in the hardest and most difficult of circumstances, when they’re not necessarily thinking rationally, and even worse, might well be susceptible to negative influences.

A patient being declared “terminally ill” might very well have several years of life left in them, pain or no pain. But in their fragile state, they could easily be convinced euthanasia is the best solution by people of influence over them: this could be in the form of a selfish family wanting their inheritance, a lazy doctor, or a hospital board wanting to save money and empty a bed. Their vulnerability leaves them open to abuse. And the end result of that isn’t pretty - it’s someone being killed.

A doctor’s remit is to save lives. This is a simple and incontestable goal which leaves little room for grey areas. Placing on them the responsibility to kill someone will be open up a veritable can of worms - a system that’s open to abuse, nigh on impossible to regulate and that has the most brutal of consequences.

 

[USF Sam]

Ed exceeded the allowable word count, but that has been forgiven. See the "Sideline Thread" for details.


Butterfly, you are up.



(Yes... this is basically a BUMP post)

 

[Butterfly]

Both my abortion and pet analogies point to one fact... that we are happy to allow people to make that choice for other lives, but they are not legally allowed to make a choice like that for THEMSELVES.

Yes, legalising euthanasia may open some people up to abuse by those who are greedy and unscrupulous. But is that reason enough to allow masses of people to suffer illnesses for which there are no current cures without the option of permanent relief? That is akin to saying that since some people drink and drive, we should just ban driving completely... problem solved.

Furthermore, while a patient may have "years left" and have less pain than someone else might do, no one but that single person will know what their quality of life is like. Yes, they may opt out sooner than someone else might, but that doesn't mean they have made the wrong choice for themselves. At the end of the day it should be a choice that is available to anyone who might want/need it.

 

[edgray]

Again, the abortion analogy is flawed: abortion is ending a potential life, a life not yet realised, not life itself. And that’s for another debate entirely. And the pet analogy too, very flawed: a pet is simply not capable of making that decision.

Your new analogy of drink driving is no better: firstly you’re working backwards there, assuming that euthanasia (driving) is already legal, which it isn’t. Secondly, you’re assuming euthanasia (driving) has a valid social function, which is under debate right now. And thirdly, because your idea, irrelevant of how bad it may be would actually solve the problem of drink driving completely.

Current medicine allows doctors to keep patients in relative comfort in all but a few medical conditions, the suffering you’re talking about is much more limited than you believe, and does not outweigh the potential abuse of a euthanasia system.

There are many more problems. It is widely understood that euthanasia will slow down medical progress in certain areas - there will be less incentive to produce methods of keeping those sick in comfort, or even curing their problems, when their lives can simply be ended. Why should an entire industry be threatened and cause the suffering of so many because a few people wish to die? By allowing euthanasia based on the supposed “rights” of a terminally ill person, the effect on society as a whole could be massive. I want medicine to advance in the care of the elderly, not be stunted because it’s better to terminate life than prolong it.

The current level of palliative care available around the world keeps this “suffering” to such a small number of people, as to be essentially unnecessary for the majority of the society.

 

[USF Sam]

Butterfy, your final post is next.

After that Ed will get the last word and this debate will be closed.


Butterfly, you're up.

 

[Butterfly]

Yet again you seem to be missing the point of the abortion and pet analogies. We can make the decision to end ANOTHER life, but we cannot make that same decision for OUR OWN life.

If, as you have said, only "a few people" opt for euthanasia, how would it slow down medical research if the majority choose not to? Yes, many elderly people may opt for euthanasia. Yes, it may slow down medical research in conditions affecting the elderly. But that said, are the elderly nothing more than medical guinea pigs then?

Furthermore, yes, there may be many opting available for pain control. However, pain or the absence thereof is not the only factor influencing one's quality of life. And the implication that if one isn't in pain, they aren't suffering is simply short sighted on your part. Suffering comes in many forms, and I believe many terminally ill patients would challenge you on the assertion that having pain controlled means they are no longer suffering.

My body, my choice.

 

[edgray]

Yet again you seem to be missing the point of the abortion and pet analogies. We can make the decision to end ANOTHER life, but we cannot make that same decision for OUR OWN life.

Abortion is not ending a life. How can I make this anymore clear?? It’s ending a POTENTIAL life, NOT life itself. No one has the right to end a human life. A foetus in development is not a fully realised life, hence why abortion is legal. Your point with that analogy is completely false because you’re claiming it’s ending a life, when it isn’t. You cannot kill a baby once it is fully realised, born and in the world. If you could, your point would make sense.

The pet analogy too, a pet isn’t a human life, it’s incapable of making any decision regarding it’s own death, so it has no valid comparison with euthanasia whatsoever.

Both of your main arguing points are built on very faulty logic.

If, as you have said, only "a few people" opt for euthanasia, how would it slow down medical research if the majority choose not to?

As I already explained, because it will become the cheaper option and by allowing the procedure there is a high chance it will become the default option, pushing many that either don’t need or don’t want to be euthanised into it. The “right” of the few will affect the lives of the many, and with the worst of possible consequences: unnecessary death.

You’re putting immense pressure on the vulnerable to make the most serious of decisions that no human should have to make for themselves.

Furthermore, yes, there may be many opting available for pain control. However, pain or the absence thereof is not the only factor influencing one's quality of life. And the implication that if one isn't in pain, they aren't suffering is simply short sighted on your part. Suffering comes in many forms, and I believe many terminally ill patients would challenge you on the assertion that having pain controlled means they are no longer suffering.

My body, my choice.

You have just permitted all forms of suicide. Your reasoning is dangerous and highly short-sighted. By basing your argument on both of those statements, you’re allowing anyone that is “suffering” (something highly subjective and impossible to quantify) to end their own life. People that most likely are not capable of making that decision rationally. This is why suicide is illegal: how can someone not thinking rationally be allowed to make such a serious decision?

No one can decide their own birth, and no one has the right to decide their own death.

 

[USF Sam]

THIS DEBATE IS CONCLUDED.
​

I am including the stringed quotes below, but please be aware that both sides used quotes which are not included. Therefore, reading the debate straight from this thread is advised.

Please PM me your votes WITH THE REASONS for your vote now.

Both parties put a lot of thought and effort into this debate and I thank them both. Please show your appreciation by voting.

The deadline for votes will be NOON EST MONDAY, JAN 31

I believe euthanasia should be legalised. Every person should have the right to end their life should they choose to do so.

Currently a mother have the right to terminate the life of her unborn child, but that same woman would not have the right to terminate her OWN life if she were to be terminally ill. The argument for abortion is that the mother has the right to decide what happens within her own body, where is that right when it comes to voluntary euthanasia?

Millions of people across the world make the decision to euthanize a suffering pet every year. Is the message that animals, who can not speak for themselves have the right not to suffer indefinitely, but a consenting human should suck it up and live with it for as long as the medical fraternity can possibly drag their miserable existence out for? Quality of life for animals, not for humans?

At what point do we draw the line of medical intervention and allow a person the right to go peacefully into the ever after by their own choosing? Is it fair to those suffering, and their loved ones to extend their lives merely so that they may suffer even more?

I’m afraid your reasoning is way off the mark. Firstly, the comparison with abortion is false: the mother is deciding not to end her own life, but the potential of life that she created that is not fully developed. Their right is to determine whether or not that life, not theirs, is permitted to come to fruition.

Your pet analogy too doesn’t apply here either. The pet isn’t deciding the end of it’s life, the human owner is. That’s not euthanasia. Euthanasia is a person deciding that they should die. And, in the same way that no one person decides on their own right to be born, no one has the right to decide when they die.

If euthanasia were legalised, the decision to end one’s life is being made in the hardest and most difficult of circumstances, when they’re not necessarily thinking rationally, and even worse, might well be susceptible to negative influences.

A patient being declared “terminally ill” might very well have several years of life left in them, pain or no pain. But in their fragile state, they could easily be convinced euthanasia is the best solution by people of influence over them: this could be in the form of a selfish family wanting their inheritance, a lazy doctor, or a hospital board wanting to save money and empty a bed. Their vulnerability leaves them open to abuse. And the end result of that isn’t pretty - it’s someone being killed.

A doctor’s remit is to save lives. This is a simple and incontestable goal which leaves little room for grey areas. Placing on them the responsibility to kill someone will be open up a veritable can of worms - a system that’s open to abuse, nigh on impossible to regulate and that has the most brutal of consequences.

Both my abortion and pet analogies point to one fact... that we are happy to allow people to make that choice for other lives, but they are not legally allowed to make a choice like that for THEMSELVES.

Yes, legalising euthanasia may open some people up to abuse by those who are greedy and unscrupulous. But is that reason enough to allow masses of people to suffer illnesses for which there are no current cures without the option of permanent relief? That is akin to saying that since some people drink and drive, we should just ban driving completely... problem solved.

Furthermore, while a patient may have "years left" and have less pain than someone else might do, no one but that single person will know what their quality of life is like. Yes, they may opt out sooner than someone else might, but that doesn't mean they have made the wrong choice for themselves. At the end of the day it should be a choice that is available to anyone who might want/need it.

Again, the abortion analogy is flawed: abortion is ending a potential life, a life not yet realised, not life itself. And that’s for another debate entirely. And the pet analogy too, very flawed: a pet is simply not capable of making that decision.

Your new analogy of drink driving is no better: firstly you’re working backwards there, assuming that euthanasia (driving) is already legal, which it isn’t. Secondly, you’re assuming euthanasia (driving) has a valid social function, which is under debate right now. And thirdly, because your idea, irrelevant of how bad it may be would actually solve the problem of drink driving completely.

Current medicine allows doctors to keep patients in relative comfort in all but a few medical conditions, the suffering you’re talking about is much more limited than you believe, and does not outweigh the potential abuse of a euthanasia system.

There are many more problems. It is widely understood that euthanasia will slow down medical progress in certain areas - there will be less incentive to produce methods of keeping those sick in comfort, or even curing their problems, when their lives can simply be ended. Why should an entire industry be threatened and cause the suffering of so many because a few people wish to die? By allowing euthanasia based on the supposed “rights” of a terminally ill person, the effect on society as a whole could be massive. I want medicine to advance in the care of the elderly, not be stunted because it’s better to terminate life than prolong it.

The current level of palliative care available around the world keeps this “suffering” to such a small number of people, as to be essentially unnecessary for the majority of the society.

Yet again you seem to be missing the point of the abortion and pet analogies. We can make the decision to end ANOTHER life, but we cannot make that same decision for OUR OWN life.

If, as you have said, only "a few people" opt for euthanasia, how would it slow down medical research if the majority choose not to? Yes, many elderly people may opt for euthanasia. Yes, it may slow down medical research in conditions affecting the elderly. But that said, are the elderly nothing more than medical guinea pigs then?

Furthermore, yes, there may be many opting available for pain control. However, pain or the absence thereof is not the only factor influencing one's quality of life. And the implication that if one isn't in pain, they aren't suffering is simply short sighted on your part. Suffering comes in many forms, and I believe many terminally ill patients would challenge you on the assertion that having pain controlled means they are no longer suffering.

My body, my choice.

Abortion is not ending a life. How can I make this anymore clear?? It’s ending a POTENTIAL life, NOT life itself. No one has the right to end a human life. A foetus in development is not a fully realised life, hence why abortion is legal. Your point with that analogy is completely false because you’re claiming it’s ending a life, when it isn’t. You cannot kill a baby once it is fully realised, born and in the world. If you could, your point would make sense.

The pet analogy too, a pet isn’t a human life, it’s incapable of making any decision regarding it’s own death, so it has no valid comparison with euthanasia whatsoever.

Both of your main arguing points are built on very faulty logic.



As I already explained, because it will become the cheaper option and by allowing the procedure there is a high chance it will become the default option, pushing many that either don’t need or don’t want to be euthanised into it. The “right” of the few will affect the lives of the many, and with the worst of possible consequences: unnecessary death.

You’re putting immense pressure on the vulnerable to make the most serious of decisions that no human should have to make for themselves.



You have just permitted all forms of suicide. Your reasoning is dangerous and highly short-sighted. By basing your argument on both of those statements, you’re allowing anyone that is “suffering” (something highly subjective and impossible to quantify) to end their own life. People that most likely are not capable of making that decision rationally. This is why suicide is illegal: how can someone not thinking rationally be allowed to make such a serious decision?

No one can decide their own birth, and no one has the right to decide their own death.