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

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

positive: euthanasia 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...) We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. 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 (To Die, to Sleep: US Physicians' Religious and Other Objections to Physician-Assisted Suicide, Terminal Sedation, and Withdrawal of Life Support" (Source: Farr A. Curlin, MD) and (http://euthanasia.procon.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. 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.

positive: Choose any Topic!!!! Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1]) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. [2] A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. . Contention 2: The Slippery Slope 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. [3] . ) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. [4] The euthanasia’s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia’s have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing? " From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain. " From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases. " From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" [5] You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted 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 [7] and [8] 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. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. [9] For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. [10] Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, " “it is thegreatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right andwrong. ” [11] This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society. As per rules, and character limitations, my soures will be in the following debate link. (. http://www.debate.org...)

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

positive: Assisted Suicide shoud be legal in Virginia 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...

positive: Assisted Suicide shoud be legal in Virginia 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.

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

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

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

positive: EUTHANASIA not be legal You say that people must die but you are wrong. God is death and god is life. He decies. Euthanasia dose not help for the diseases for today!!!. May it be cancer for the old, they should live to see the world to the end

positive: Euthanasia Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1]) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. [2] A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. . Contention 2: The Slippery Slope 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. [3] .) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. [4] The euthanasia’s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia’s have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?" From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain." From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases." From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" [5] You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted 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 [7] and [8] 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. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. [9] For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. [10] Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, " “it is thegreatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right andwrong.” [11] This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society. Due to me running out of characters my sources will be presentedi n the comments section.

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

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

positive: Euthansia should be legal You stated that people should have the right to choose whether they should live or die, yet these people who are ill and feel as if they do not have the strength lack judgment to make a ethical decision. As stated by Dave Anderson on Top 10 reasons Euthanasia should be illegal stated "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." For these people are not thinking about whether they want to live or die but being a burden to their loved ones whom regardless of the situation will care for the person due to their love for them. Such as a mother to a son she would not care if he would be a burden for she would do her best to take care of her child to the best of her ability as long as they are alive.

positive: Should assisted suicide be legal Thank you. I liked this debate and my con against my opponent is it would lower our population and make family's more depressed.

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

positive: Assisted Suicide. The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate. Medical technology today has achieved remarkable feats in prolonging the lives of human beings. Respirators can support a patient"s failing lungs and medicines can sustain that patient"s physiological processes. For those patients who have a realistic chance of surviving an illness or accident, medical technology is science"s greatest gift to mankind. For the terminally ill, however, it is just a means of prolonging suffering. Medicine is supposed to alleviate the suffering that a patient undergoes.Yet the only thing that medical technology does for a dying patient is give that patient more pain and agony day after day. Some terminal patients in the past have gone to their doctors and asked for a final medication that would take all the pain away" lethal drugs. For example, as Ronald Dworkin recounts, Lillian Boyes, an English woman who was suffering from a severe case of rheumatoid arthritis, begged her doctor to assist her to die because she could no longer stand the pain (184). Another example is Dr. Ali Khalili, Dr. Jack Kevorkian"s twentieth patient. According to Kevorkian"s attorney, "[Dr. Khalili] was a pain specialist; he could get any kind of pain medication, but he came to Dr. Kevorkian. There are times when pain medication does not suffice"(qtd. in Cotton 363). Terminally ill patients should have the right to assisted suicide because it is the best means for them to end the pain caused by an illness which no drug can cure. A competent terminal patient must have the option of assisted suicide because it is in the best interest of that person. Further, a dying person"s physical suffering can be most unbearable to that person"s immediate family. Medical technology has failed to save a loved-one. But, successful or not, medicine has a high price attached to it. The cost is sometimes too much for the terminally ill"s family. A competent dying person has some knowledge of this, and with every day that he or she is kept alive, the hospital costs skyrocket. "The cost of maintaining [a dying person]. . . has been estimated as ranging from about two thousand to ten thousand dollars a month" (Dworkin 187). Human life is expensive, and in the hospital there are only a few affluent terminal patients who can afford to prolong what life is left in them. As for the not-so-affluent patients, the cost of their lives is left to their families. Of course, most families do not consider the cost while the terminally ill loved-one is still alive.When that loved-one passes away, however, the family has to struggle with a huge hospital bill and are often subject to financial ruin.Most terminal patients want their death to be a peaceful one and with as much consolation as possible. Ronald Dworkin, author of Life"s Dominion, says that "many people . . . want to save their relatives the expense of keeping them pointlessly alive . . ."(193). To leave the family in financial ruin is by no means a form of consolation. Those terminally ill patients who have accepted their imminent death cannot prevent their families from plunging into financial debt because they do not have the option of halting the medical bills from piling up. If terminal patients have the option of assisted suicide, they can ease their families" financial burdens as well as their suffering. Finally, many terminal patients want the right to assisted suicide because it is a means to endure their end without the unnecessary suffering and cost. Most, also, believe that the right to assisted suicide is an inherent right which does not have to be given to the individual. It is a liberty which cannot be denied because those who are dying might want to use this liberty as a way to pursue their happiness. Dr. Kevorkian"s attorney, Geoffrey N. Fieger, voices the absurdity of curbing the right to assisted suicide, saying that "a law which does not make anybody do anything, that gives people the right to decide, and prevents the state from prosecuting you for exercising your freedom not to suffer, violates somebody else"s constitutional rights is insane" (qtd. in Cotton 364). Terminally ill patients should be allowed to die with dignity. Choosing the right to assisted suicide would be a final exercise of autonomy for the dying. They will not be seen as people who are waiting to die but as human beings making one final active choice in their lives. As Dworkin puts it, "whatever view we take about [euthanasia], we want the right to decide for ourselves . . ."(239). On the other side of the issue, however, people who are against assisted suicide do not believe that the terminally ill have the right to end their suffering. They hold that it is against the Hippocratic Oath for doctors to participate in active euthanasia. Perhaps most of those who hold this argument do not know that, for example, in Canada only a "few medical schools use the Hippocratic Oath" because it is inconsistent with its premises (Barnard 28). The oath makes the physician promise to relieve pain and not to administer deadly medicine.This oath cannot be applied to cancer patients. For treatment, cancer patients are given chemotherapy, a form of radioactive medicine that is poisonous to the body. As a result of chemotherapy, the body suffers incredible pain, hair loss, vomiting, and other extremely unpleasant side effects. Thus, chemotherapy can be considered "deadly medicine" because of its effects on the human body, and this inconsistency is the reason why the Hippocratic Oath cannot be used to deny the right to assisted suicide. Furthermore, to administer numerous drugs to a terminal patient and place him or her on medical equipment does not help anything except the disease itself. Respirators and high dosages of drugs cannot save the terminal patient from the victory of a disease or an illness. Dr. Christaan Barnard, author of Good Life/Good Death, quotes his colleague, Dr. Robert Twycross, who said, "To use such measures in the terminally ill, with no expectancy of a return to health, is generally inappropriate and is"therefore"bad medicine by definition" (22). Still other people argue that if the right to assisted suicide is given, the doctor-patient relationship would encourage distrust. The antithesis of this claim is true. Cheryl Smith, in her article advocating active euthanasia (or assisted suicide), says that "patients who are able to discuss sensitive issues such as this are more likely to trust their physicians" (409). A terminal patient consenting to assisted suicide knows that a doctor"s job is to relieve pain, and giving consent to that doctor shows great trust. Other opponents of assisted suicide insist that there are potential abuses that can arise from legalizing assisted suicide.They claim that terminal patients might be forced to choose assisted suicide because of their financial situation.This view is to be respected. However, the choice of assisted suicide is in the patient"s best interest, and this interest can include the financial situation of a patient"s relatives. Competent terminal patients can easily see the sorrow and grief that their families undergo while they wait for death to take their dying loved ones away. The choice of assisted suicide would allow these terminally ill patients to end the sorrow and griefof their families as well as their own misery. The choice would also put a halt to the financial worries of these families. It is in the patient"s interest that the families that they leave will be subject to the smallest amount of grief and worry possible.This is not a mere "duty to die." It is a caring way for the dying to say, "Yes, I am going to die. It is all right, please do not worry anymore." Further, legalization of assisted suicide will also help to regulate the practice of it. "Legalization, with medical record documentation and reporting requirements, will enable authorities to regulate the practice and guard against abuses, while punishing real offenders"(Smith 409). There are still some, however, who argue that the right to assisted suicide is not a right that can be given to anyone at all. This claim is countered by a judge by the name of Stephen Reinhardt. According to an article in the Houston Chronicle, Judge Reinhardt ruled on this issue by saying that "a competent, terminally-ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a

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

positive: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Euthanasia. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1]) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. [2] A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. . Contention 2: The Slippery Slope 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. [3] .) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. [4] The euthanasia’s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia’s have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?" From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain." From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases." From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" [5] You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted 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 [7] and [8] 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. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. [9] For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. [10] Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, " “it is thegreatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right andwrong.” [11] This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society. Due to me running out of characters my sources will be presentedi n the comments section.

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

positive: Assisted suicide Euthanasia violates the guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no harm

positive: Euthanasia Euthanasia, a method of end a person life release them from pain in a humanely way. Should we or shouldn't we allow Euthanasia ?

positive: Euthanasia Euthanasia is assisted suicide that allows sick or injured people to make hasty decisions about ending their lives. In order for human life to continue on Earth, everyone's life needs to be respected and protected according to the American Life League. "American Life League." American Government. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.

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

positive: Euthanasia It is not our decision when our life should end. We did not put ourselves on this earth and we should not intentionally take ourselves off this earth. One going through immense suffering has the right to deny treatment, he or she does not have to pay the money for expensive medicines to prolong the inevitable if and only if that is the case in the situation. It would be a natural death instead of the choice to end ones own life intentionally. A family has a lot to learn from the suffering of a loved one just like the individual can learn a lot from suffering. By the way that the individual reacts to the suffering that he or she is tested with the family can learn the positive effects of suffering and see the value of the pain that we go through in life sometimes. In order to be compassionate to those who are suffering we must first go through some kind of suffering ourselves. Not to say that everyone has to go through a deadly disease to know how to show compassion but we all have gone through some sort of suffering at some point in our lives and we can all relate to that as members of the human species. Through suffering we can learn to be less attached to material things and more attached to the things that actually matter in life like loved ones in our lives. When you go through an immense suffering things like your clothes and your shoes dont matter anymore because what really matters is more evident. Euthanasia tells us the opposite though. It tells us that suffering has no value in life and that if we are ever face it then we should give up because we aren't worth it. Anyone who supports a family members decision to go through with killing themselves is also wrong. In a time where you should be supportive of your love one you have said that someone of your own family should just end their own life. It may seem like an act of mercy but it is not it is an act of giving up on someone where they are most in need of love and support.

positive: Euthanasia Hello, First I'd like to say that to say Euthanasia is cowardly is quite false in fact and that it should be allowed. How could you say that it is cowardly when people who are terminally ill go through unending amounts of pain every day and decide to end their life in order to relieve that suffering? Ending one's life isn't a cowardly thing to do, it is a very brave thing to do. To decide to end your life in order to seek the good of yourself would take a lot of bravery knowing you'd die. Second What about people who have no chance of living and are just waiting for their death? You believe that they should live with that sort of timer on their lives and live every day knowing that they could die going through intense pain? People have a right to die and to chose how they die. It would be inhumane to allow someone to go through suffering without an end till their death. Third What value could suffering ultimately have? Suffering is a terrible thing and there is no apparent goods that come out of suffering, suffering is only a curse on all of humanity and anything to reduce or take away that suffering is a good thing. Suffering only brings out the worst in people, and if there's any way to end that suffering then a person should have the option to use the method.

positive: Legalization of suicide You idiot. people are Humans, once we don't exist anymore, We won't exist people will sucide over an Game, or an Bullying, Do you like being bullied for being fat, I'll Bully you for right now, Me- You idiot, Lets go.. You- Lets go where..? Me- Come with me you idiot. You- Okay.... Me- Drags to locker room You- Why!!.. Me-Puts up the underwear with hook, You- *gasp* This hurts.. On Oct. 12, Brittany Maynard, 29, who suffers from inoperable terminal brain cancer, announced plans to voluntarily end her life on Nov. 1. Maynard"s diagnosis means she will eventually lose all cognitive capabilities. Refusing aggressive chemotherapy treatment, Maynard decided to move to Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. Under Oregon"s Death With Dignity Act, mentally competent terminally ill patients with less than six months to live can elect when to die by taking lethal doses of prescribed drugs. With only a month left to live, Maynard has made her death into a campaign for terminally ill patients" right to die. However, her decision has been met with fervent opposition from disability rights advocates and religious conservatives. The freedom to live according to one"s beliefs and choices is duly recognized and celebrated in the United States. But terminally ill patients who wish to choose death with dignity versus a painful and prolonged end often face an enormous challenge even to obtain life-ending drugs. Denying mentally capable individuals the right to end their lives in a peaceful manner is a denial of their individual rights to self-determination and freedom of choice. Oregon is one of only five U.S. states " along with Vermont, Washington, Montana and New Mexico " that allow medically assisted suicide. In the rest of the country, assisting people with suicide (even if they are terminally ill) is a crime. Maynard"s campaign highlights just how intrusive and unfair the laws criminalizing assisted suicide are for terminally ill patients and their families. For one, these patients must accept and live with their diagnosis. Second, asking a loved one to help end their suffering bears the cost of exposing them to the threat of prosecution and jail time. The fear of prosecution for family members who help terminally ill patients is not theoretical. Last year Barbara Mancini, a 57-year-old nurse in Pennsylvania, was prosecuted for handing her father, John Yourshaw, a lethal dose of morphine. Yourshaw was a home hospice patient in failing health and had repeatedly expressed to family members his wish to die. Mancini was charged with a felony after an autopsy showed that her father died from a morphine overdose. The case was eventually dismissed but not before costing Mancini her job and more than $100,000 in legal fees. Fear of prosecution is not the only hurdle facing advocates of death with dignity. Disability rights activists and religious conservatives have been very vocal about the ethics regarding assisted suicide laws. "There are hundreds " or thousands " more people who could be significantly harmed if assisted suicide is legal," Marilyn Golden, a senior policy analyst at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, wrote in response to Maynard"s announcement. Golden maintains that prognoses of terminal illness are often wrong and the disabled or terminally ill may be encouraged to choose assisted suicide for cost reasons. She adds that dying from illness is not necessarily painful because of "palliative sedation." Opposing physician-assisted suicide denies those disabled by terminal illness the right to control their deaths despite the fact that they suffer no cognitive impairment. To be sure, there may be terminally ill patients who wish to cling to the possibility of incorrect diagnosis. But most people are convinced of their fatal prognosis, given the advances in medical technology. Besides, there is scant evidence of misuse and no local movements to repeal the laws in states that have death with dignity statutes. Golden"s assertions regarding treatment costs as a factor in choosing assisted death, particularly for the poor, also do not hold up. A 2007 study published by The Journal of Medical Ethics found "no evidence of heightened risk for the elderly, women, the uninsured, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses, including depression, or racial or ethnic minorities" from the death with dignity statutes in Oregon and the Netherlands. The criticisms of disability rights advocates suffer from one central contradiction. They claim to protect the terminally ill (who are also often disabled) by insuring that they do not get steered into ending their lives. But that argument takes the crucial decision of choosing death with dignity away from the very people they purport to advocate for. Death with dignity statutes such as the one in Oregon allow cognitively capable patients to decide when and how to end their lives, regardless of their physical abilities. Hence, opposing physician-assisted suicide denies those disabled by terminal illness the right to control their deaths despite the fact that they suffer no cognitive impairment. Support for the right-to-die Religious conservatives oppose assisted death on the basis of their beliefs about the worth of life and the meaning of suffering. For example, Kara Tippetts, a devout Christian who is terminally ill, acknowledged in a letter to Maynard the pain of knowing one"s days are numbered. "But it was never intended for us to decide when that last breath is breathed," wrote Tippetts. "Brittany, when we trust Jesus to be the carrier, protecter, redeemer of our hearts, death is no longer dying. My heart longs for you to know this truth, this love, this forever living." As with most religious opponents of assisted suicide, Tippets applies her own definitions of the transcendent value of suffering and the existence of an afterlife on others, including those with differing views. But none of these arguments are new. What is new, however, is the number of people who are engaged in the right-to-die debate because of Maynard"s decision. A recent Gallup survey shows that 7 out of 10 Americans polled supported some form of physician-assisted suicide. It"s a dramatic increase from just over 50 percent in 1970s. Legislatures in Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have recently introduced death with dignity bills, with votes in New Jersey and Pennsylvania expected this year. Maynard"s campaign may serve as the catalyst for other states to consider similar laws. A handful of European countries " the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg " have legalized physician-assisted death. But the U.S. doesn"t have to look that far for examples. On Oct. 15 the Canadian Supreme Court heard oral arguments on reversing a two-decade-old precedent, which would decriminalize assisted death and even permit physician-assisted suicide. As the representative from Quebec, which has already legalized the measure, rightly noted, death is part of life, and assistance in death is not suicide but should more accurately be described as end-of-life care. Unfortunately, that kind of thoughtful debate continues to be absent from our discourse in the United States, where death with dignity is often not an option for the terminally ill.

negative: Should Suicide be legal Suicide is a criminal offense in most western countries. I think suicide should be legal because its your life and you should be able to do what you want with it. Suicide is different from abortion, cloning, euthanasia, and taking someone else's life in the important respect that it involves only one individual and his/her choice about the way he/she lives and dies.

negative: euthanasia and assisted suicide The rules to this debate are as follows. first round you present your argument since I am con. I will post my opening arguments and rebuttals in the second

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

negative: Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill Full Resolution: Euthanasia should be reconised as a human right for the terminally ill, as long as they are capable of rational thought after mental health checksRulesYou must have at least 2500 elo to accept You must have completed at least 10 debatesNo trollingNo forfeiture If you break a rule then you automatically loseR1 is acceptance Definitions will be debated during the debate and may be provided by Con in round 1No voting framework is required although it is still an option

negative: Euthanasia should be legal Just please answer the questions posted in my original argument, and if you do, I will be impressed.

negative: Euthanasia should be legalised I will be arguing that euthanasia (I am assuming of humans) should not be legal.

negative: Abortion The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." [49] Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies. The choice over when and whether to have children is central to a woman's independence and ability to determine her future. [134] Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." [8] Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that undue restrictions on abortion infringe upon "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." [59] CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, JD, stated that Roe v. Wade was "a landmark of what is, in the truest sense, women"s liberation." [113] Personhood begins after a fetus becomes "viable" (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception. [31] [32] Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." [49] Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when most abortions are performed. According to a 2010 review by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, "most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception." The cortex does not become functional until at least the 26th week of a fetus' development, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was endorsed in 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, [1] which stated that that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain." [142] A 2005 University of California at San Francisco study said fetuses probably can't feel pain until the 29th or 30th week of gestation. [166] Abortions that late into a pregnancy are extremely rare and are often restricted by state laws. [164] According to Stuart W. G. Derbyshire, PhD, Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham (England), "...fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur." [10] The "flinching" and other reactions seen in fetuses when they detect pain stimuli are mere reflexes, not an indication that the fetus is perceiving or "feeling" anything. [135] [145] Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces maternal injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. According to Daniel R. Mishell, Jr., MD, Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, before abortion was legalized women would frequently try to induce abortions by using coat hangers, knitting needles, or radiator flush, or by going to unsafe "back-alley" abortionists. [150] In 1972, there were 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortions. By 1976, after Roe v. Wade had legalized abortion nationwide, this number dropped to two. [7] The World Health Organization estimated in 2004 that unsafe abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths worldwide each year, many of those in developing countries where safe and legal abortion services are difficult to access. [11] Modern abortion procedures are safe and do not cause lasting health issues such as cancer and infertility. A peer-reviewed study published by Obstetrics & Gynecology in Jan. 2015 reported that less than one quarter of one percent of abortions lead to major health complications. [159] [160] A 2012 study in Obstetrics & Gynecology found a woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). The study also found that "pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion." [3] The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated "Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States." They also said the mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. [122] The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all refuted the claim that abortion can lead to a higher probability of developing breast cancer. [22] A 1993 fertility investigation of 10,767 women by the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women who had at least two abortions experienced the same future fertility as those who had at least two natural pregnancies. [14] Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure. [158] Studies by the American Psychological Association (APA), the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC), and researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health all concluded that purported links between abortion and mental health problems are unfounded. [152] Abortion gives pregnant women the option to choose not to bring fetuses with profound abnormalities to full term. Some fetuses have such severe disorders that death is guaranteed before or shortly after birth. These include anencephaly, in which the brain is missing, and limb-body wall complex, in which organs develop outside the body cavity. [12] It would be cruel to force women to carry fetuses with fatal congenital defects to term. Even in the case of nonfatal conditions, such as Down syndrome, parents may be unable to care for a severely disabled child. Deborah Anne Driscoll, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, said "many couples... don"t have the resources, don"t have the emotional stamina, don"t have the family support [to raise a child with Down syndrome]." [9] Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. A University of California at San Francisco study found that women who were turned away from abortion clinics (because they had passed the gestational limit imposed by the clinic) were three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years later than women who were able to obtain abortions. 76% of the "turnaways" ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with 44% of the women who had abortions. The same study found that women unable to obtain abortions were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who had an abortion, and were more than twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence. [114] [73] Reproductive choice protects women from financial disadvantage. Many women who choose abortion don't have the financial resources to support a child. 42% of women having abortions are below the federal poverty level. [13] A Sep. 2005 survey in the peer-reviewed Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health asking women why they had an abortion found that 73% of respondents said they could not afford to have a baby, and 38% said giving birth would interfere with their education and career goals. [19] An Oct. 2010 University of Massachusetts at Amherst study published in the peer-reviewed American Sociological Review found that women at all income levels earn less when they have children, with low-wage workers being most affected, suffering a 15% earnings penalty. [136] A baby should not come into the world unwanted. Having a child is an important decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding. [75] 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. [50] Abortion reduces welfare costs to taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency, evaluated a proposed anti-abortion bill that would ban all abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and found that the resulting additional births would increase the federal deficit by $225 million over nine years, due to the increased need for Medicaid coverage. Also, since many women seeking late-term abortions are economically disadvantaged, their children are likely to require welfare assistance. [129] [130] http://abortion.procon.org...

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

negative: Should assisted suicide be legal The helper would still spend time in jail/community service/ mental institutions so why help? Thank you.

negative: Should assisted suicide be legal I would like to say more on this debate but my opponent has not given me any information to refute.

negative: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Dismissing something easily says more about the one dismissing than about what's being dismissed. It seems that you didn't even read the objection but instead had a prefabricated response ready. I'm here to learn about the arguments surrounding these important policy issues. From your response to the objection, it seems that you're here to do something else. And that's okay of course, but let's actually try to start the debate. First, there is the empirical aspect of it, which requires calculations and some guesswork about what corporations might or might not do given a change in the tax code. Second, it necessarily involves interrogating the meaning of a corporation, since we are referring them to discrete revenue and expenditure categories that are different from private citizens and non-profit organizations. You are wrong to say that I am arguing "political drawbacks" instead of economic benefits. We are debating political economy--that point at which they intersect, to put it into academic terminology. It is useful at times to distinguish economic calculations from policy, but to fail to see how they inform one another distorts the bases on which these kinds of decisions must be made. First, I will address the empirical aspect of the argument. Then I will respond specifically to each of your points. As I indicated in my objection, the question of raising or lowering the tax rate for corporations cannot really be approached without consideration of the fact that many of the richest corporations do not pay anywhere near the going rate. According to the Government Accountability Office, the average corporate tax rate is only 12.6%. http://money.cnn.com... A report from the Citizens for Tax Justice found that 30 of the biggest 280 corporations had no federal tax liability whatsoever. http://www.nytimes.com... The argument that lower tax rates will keep business in the U.S. ignores these disparities. The assertion becomes more ridiculous if we ask just what the tax rate should be. Those thirty companies that completely dodged the tax system through offshore maneuvers have no incentive to bring business back into the U.S. no matter how low the rate is. If we still entertain illusions that the global market will somehow correct this, we can refer to this study: http://www.cfr.org... and this http://www.wsj.com... Nor are corporations to blame for the fact that they dodge taxes. Which indicates the significance of my second point. It is misguided to try to blame corporations for being greedy, and the recent attempts to publish CEO pay as a way of shaming these great disparities in wealth are rather pointless, because as I said above, all considerations for a corporation are subordinated to those of the bottom line. The issue, as you said, is not whether to abolish the corporate tax altogether. The rate reflects the societal costs of protecting the public from the inherent abuses of corporate activity. Now, that is a difficult calculation to make because many of those costs are integrated into a whole web of public and private institutions. In an obvious way, this means that the corporate tax rate needs to contribute paying for the SEC, FDA, EPA and all the hosts of other agencies out there whose job is to protect the public good from the undesirable results that occur when a corporation does precisely what it's supposed to do, that is make money at all other expenses. The argument that lowering the rate will incentivize business investment ignores the complexity of these costs. That is what I was getting at in the first part of my argument, which your rejoinder ignored. Corporations rely on able-bodied Americans to buy their goods and to supply them with labor. It is this complexity that maybe gave you the mistaken notion that I thought tax revenues were distributed randomly. My understanding of it is that there are three metrics on which the rate is decided: 1) equity, which evaluates how the tax rate is distributed across individuals taxes 2) efficiency, which tries to address potential distortions in the decision-making process due to tax burdens 3) competitiveness, which is, admittedly the most vague of the three--but it has to do with maintaining rates that are comparable to those of other nations with similar GDP. It is the third that seems to be your best shot for arguing the tax rate should be lowered. Yes, it is vague, but it is a problem only because we do not tax pure profits, as explained here (p. 16-17 specifically) http://www.fas.org... You said that while "we pronounce ourselves to be the most capitalist nation, we impose heavy taxation." Well, people pronounce a lot of things all the time--but if we mean by "most capitalist nation" that we are or should be engaged in some kind of free market laissez-faire system, completely free of public oversight, then you are mistaken. The so-called free market has already demonstrated that, left to its own devices, it is patently destructive and fatal to human interests. We have known that for more than a hundred years. In any case, that is a historical point which we can take up if you'd like. Nor do the present facts justify characterizing taxation on business as heavy, when compared with other industrialized nations. According to the findings of the CRS report mentioned above, the U.S. statutory rate is the highest, but the effective rate is the same as other OECD nations. In fact, the U.S. "collects less in corporate tax revenue relative to Gross Domestic Production (GDP) (2.3% in 2011) than the average of other OECD countries (3.0% in 2011). " As for your remark that the public has no say about investment in the private sector, yes, of course. But you missed the point. The issue is not dictating investment--it's that we have good reason to question simplistic narratives about growth, narratives that come from the financial industry and corporations that consecrate growth and try to convince us that it is an undeniable good. Lastly, you said that "[t]he private sector rarely benefits from public education. Most private sector jobs require a higher level education, which is in most cases provided by a private university or college." That preposterous statement is not the sort that will become any less preposterous by looking at the numbers, no matter how you spin them. For one, it's way too sweeping. Also, there is a huge part of the private sector that requires no level of higher education--nearly all the workforce of restaurant and retail industry, including the folks that make your burger or ring you up at the Walmart, nor their managers, known as middle-management, and a whole host of other working people on whom the private sector relies for the delivery of its goods and services. But more importantly, it is a gross distortion to separate the actual functioning of the private sector from the interests of the public good. Yes, there are specific occasions when such a distinction is required--for instance in legal contexts--but if decisions are to be made about political economy, we must find a perspective that understands how they interact.

negative: Euthanasia - Class: Assisted Suicide Just simple arguments, only 500 characters. Good luck!

negative: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering Resolution: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering from a terminal illness== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. 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 == Definitions ==Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Legalized is to make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law (1). Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and in formed decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind. Suffering is when you are in unbearable pain. Terminally ill is when a person who is sick is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life in a few months or years (2). Sources(1) . https://www.google.co.uk...(2) . https://www.google.co.uk...

negative: Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage Contraceptives as Preventive Care Health care providers, women and insurers all have every reason to prefer contraception over the costs and health impact of unintended pregnancy. Perhaps more importantly, women have every right to ask for the ability to control the timing, spacing and frequency at which pregnancy occurs.This debate has focused primarily on the potential negative health impacts of mistimed pregnancy, in order to support the view that contraception presents a less expensive treatment option for insurers when compared to managing crises that often result from unhealthy pregnancies. Many other areas of focus had to be ignored, such as the fairness of allowing men to enjoy erectile-dysfunction medication while denying contraception coverage to women, and the very basic right of women to control their reproductive fate. For the record, I personally regret not having had the opportunity to elaborate on this basic human right. Covered in This Debate Perhaps surprisingly, considering the potential ranges of topics associated with this subject, this debate has centered on the question of whether or not pregnancy qualifies as a medical condition that might incur costs, and potentially cause negative health effects that should be avoided. For this reason, I will focus on underscoring the arguments made on this aspect of the debate in the final round. Is Pregnancy a Medical Condition that Might Reasonably Require Medical Care? Repeatedly, Con has stated that pregnancy is not a problem for women. The truth is far different. In fact, pregnancy is very often lethal for women without medical treatment. Women require competent medical care in order to enjoy a healthful and safe pregnancy. The unacceptably high number of maternity related deaths among women who are unable to obtain such care proves this fact. Con says that pregnancy is not a disease, or a harmful health condition that needs to be managed. However, in order for this to be true, pregnant women require medical attention. Maternity related death is a major problem for women and newborn infants in regions that lack adequate health care. http://www.childinfo.org...; /> http://www.debate.org...;[1] Additionally, even developed nations such as the United States often struggle to control the number of deaths associated with pregnancy. http://www.cdc.gov...; />[2] http://www.debate.org...And the causes of death among pregnant women help to underscore the unavoidable conclusion that pregnancy can cause very severe health consequences that are very likely to require medical care. http://www.cdc.gov...; /> [3] http://www.debate.org...;Con repeatedly argues that pregnancy is not a health problem that should be managed or in some cases prevented. However, becoming pregnant is always a serious medical event, and is often fatal. Without modern medical techniques, childbirth would be one of the leading causes of mortality among women. [4] Even healthy pregnancies require assistance and incur costs that can be offset by insurance. However, there are many types of pregnancy, and many associated health conditions. Con has never argued that these adverse health conditions should not be prevented.The Benefits of Preventing Unwanted PregnancySpacing and Timing of Pregnancies Women must provide adequate intervals between pregnancies in order to prevent a wide range of health problems that can result from spacing pregnancies too close together. Some of the negative health effects of rapidly sequenced pregnancies can include: -Preterm delivery -low birth weight -Uterine Rupture in vaginal deliveries that follow too closely to a C-Section -Placental Abruption (placenta detaches from the uterus) [5] Improved Prenatal Care Besides pregnancy spacing, contraceptives also allow for controlled pregnancies. A woman who was not intending to become pregnant may not quickly detect her pregnancy, and therefore not provide important health care and nutrition to her gestating baby. Maternal Depression Becoming pregnant is a key life event for most women. Unwanted pregnancies can cause severe depression, triggering inadequate maternal care.Paternal and Familial Involvement A critical component of a healthy birth outcome is the involvement level of the child's father and other family members. This involvement provides healthful assistance to the mother (both before and after delivery) as well as the infant. Benefits to Insurance ProvidersIn addition to the obvious health benefits of controlled pregnancies, there are numerous cost savings to insurance providers. Despite the fact that comprehensive family planning services such as implants, surgical procedures, self-administered and hormonal contraception may be unaffordable for many individual women, family planning is inexpensive for insurers. This is especially true when we consider that insurance companies will pay explosive costs associated with mistimed, unprepared for, and nonviable pregnancies - many of which can present lifetimes of expensive treatments. Contraceptives are very effective in preventing these accidental pregnancies, when used correctly. http://www.guttmacher.org... Source Ref: http://www.guttmacher.org...; /> [6]http://www.debate.org... Additionally, insurance plan providers have a powerful interest in preventing unwanted pregnancies.The costs of health maintenance during and after a pregnancy are explosive, especially if there are complications associated with that pregnancy. Since half of all pregnancies are unplanned, the cost saving to insurers that might be expected to result from prevention practices offers an overwhelming argument in favor of contraception. http://www.childinfo.org... Source link: http://www.guttmacher.org...; />http://www.debate.org... [7] A Clear DecisionContraception helps to protect the health of women and babies, as well as serving the best financial interests of insurers and overburdened health care providers. [1]http://www.debate.org... [2]http://www.guttmacher.org... [3]http://www.guttmacher.org...[4] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.mayoclinic.com... [6] http://www.guttmacher.org... [7] http://www.guttmacher.org...

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

negative: Euthanasia Euthanasia is the act of putting to death in a painlessly way an animal or human when they are on a painful disease or condition. Should it be legalized?

negative: Abortion should be legal up through the second trimester, regardless of circumstance Rebuttal 1A: This case was more of a defense; just in case you claimed that death by abortion was lesened by Roe V. Wade.Rebuttal 1B:My opponent tries to debunk my statsitcal evidence by quoting from his ownn source. He claims they are "one of the most pretigious medical journals on Earth". However, this study does not reflect his claim. Let me give you information about a woman's eligibility for the study from his own source excludes many women.In a study regarding egtopic pregnancy and early birth, they exclude women who had an egtopic pregnancy that originally was in their study. They excluded women who had more than one abortion. They exclude large groups of women to where only 1.1% remain. This allows for the study's data to be easily manipulated. They excluded women, as I have shown, that would contradict their study. I would like voters to disregard this source; as it is obviously manipulated. My source is a compilation of over 59 studies; while his study is faulty and only has one. I urge voters to hold this point in my favor.Rebuttal 1C:The site itself is not the problem. If the study itself is credible, there is no need to deny it. The study itself is from the Journel of Reproductive Medicine. This study is a compliation of 59 studies. This proves its validity. He ignores the 2007 study as he claims that other studies I quoted were irrelevant since some of them were in the past. The studies covered the times from the 70's to recent years. that is what makes that study so reliable. Thank you for that. Rebuttal 1D:My opponent quote a study that seems to be flawed. As my other study explains:" Abortion increases a woman's overall risk of breast cancer by 30 per cent. The risk is likely much higher in women who have a first abortion at a young age, or who have a family history of breast cancer. Since 1957, 23 of 37 worldwide studies show an increased breast cancer risk with abortion, a risk as high as 310 per cent. Ten of fifteen U.S. studies confirm the abortion-breast cancer link. The biological rationale for breast cancer development is related to the woman's unprotected internal exposure to estrogen when a pregnancy is abruptly terminated early in gestation. The magnitude of the risk has, until recently, been hidden by studies of poor quality, many of which have failed to separate induced abortion from low-risk spontaneous miscarriage. The medical establishment is often slow to accept and respond to emerging data, slowed further, in this case, by the conflicting politics of abortion. A history of previous induced abortion(s) may play a role in cancers of the reproductive system and rectal cancers. Inconsistencies between studies and countries where the studies are done, in addition to the fact that in the literature, spontaneous and induced abortions are often not separated, make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Recent studies have connected a higher risk of cervical and ovarian cancers to previous abortions, though the degree of risk varies from study to study. A consistent finding has been the protective effect of full-term pregnancies against the onset of cancers of the reproductive system. Researchers have found a connection between abortion and rectal cancer. With reproductive and rectal cancers on the increase in women, more studies are needed, specifically to examine the connection between abortion and cancer. Subsequent pregnancies are negatively affected by induced abortion. The main complications are: cervical incompetence leading to future miscarriages; uterine perforations and placenta previa with serious implications to the health of the woman and her child(ren) in later pregnancies; and ectopic pregnancies which, if undiagnosed and not treated, can lead to a woman's death. Forty-nine studies of preterm or premature births from Europe and North America found increased risks ranging from 30 per cent to 510 per cent. The consequence of this significantly increased risk of prematurity after abortion is that the rate of cerebral palsy among premature infants weighing less than 1500 grams at birth is 38 times greater than among the general population. Induced abortion, in other words, is directly responsible for many thousands of cases of cerebral palsy - in North America alone - that otherwise would not have occurred. Despite the data which point to the link between induced abortion and future serious health risks, many North-American research studies fail to point these out. Numerical data should be carefully compared to research abstracts and conclusions because they often do not correlate; in other words, where data clearly indicate increased health risks, they are often minimized in the abstracts and conclusions of medical articles. In light of the growing knowledge of the impact of abortion on the rate of prematurity, abortion providers soon incur greatly increased liability for obtaining informed consent for women contemplating abortion. Women die from abortion-related problems but, owing to irregular and biased reporting, it is difficult to know how many. Reasons for maternal mortality related to abortion are many, including hemorrhage, infection, embolism, ectopic pregnancy, and cardiomyopathy. Coding deaths in hospitals and reasons for death on death certificates frequently record only the presenting problem as the cause of death, which results in many abortion-related deaths going unreported. The American Medical Association (AMA) relies on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for its statistics concerning abortion-related deaths and, given that the CDC uses hospital and clinic records (which underreport maternal deaths from abortion) for its data, the AMA does not recognize the full extent of abortion-related deaths. At most risk of abortion-related deaths are African-American and other minority women. A large-scale, authoritative Scandinavian study establishes post-pregnancy death rates within one year that are nearly four times greater among women who abort their pregnancies than among women who bear their babies. The suicide rate is nearly six times greater among aborting women than among women who give birth. These findings refute the oft-heard claim that induced abortion is safer than childbirth. There is an urgent need for independent studies of maternal mortality related to abortion, and medical facilities should be required to keep more accurate and informative records so that women may be better served in this area." (1) Obviously, Pro's sources are not correct.Mental Health Rebuttal:I will let my source do the talking:" Women who have abortions are at risk of emotional difficulties after the procedure, especially those with pre-existing factors such as relationship problems, ambivalence about their abortion, adolescence, previous psychiatric or emotional problems, pressure by others into making a decision to abort, or religious or philosophical values that are at odds with aborting a pregnancy. The prevailing interpretation of post-abortion grief, depression, guilt, anger, and anxiety in abortion clinics and research studies in North America is that they are due, not to the procedure, but to a woman's pre-existing disposition to psychological problems. Where support through counseling is offered (for example, in Sweden) to pregnant women who are not sure if they should or can carry their pregnancy to term, they are more likely not to abort. Given the evidence that women in certain risk groups are more emotionally vulnerable after an abortion, should abortion clinics and medical facilities consider recommending against abortion in their cases? This question has become crucial given recent findings that women who abort are much likelier to commit suicide. Informed consent for the psychological well-being of women, post-abortion, is an issue which health care professionals should address. After an abortion, women are more likely to display self-destructive behaviors including suicide and attempts at suicide; mutilation and various forms of punishment (including repeat abortions and sterilization); drug, alcohol and tobacco abuse; and eating disorders as a way of denying or minimizing the guilt, pain and numbness they feel. Women who abort often have trouble bonding with the children of future pregnancies and have a higher chance of eventually abusing them, which leads to a cyclical pattern of abuse-abortion- abuse. It seems clear, given the frequency of negative behavioral outcomes for women after abortion, that more thought needs to be given to appropriate therapy for women (and their children) who are at risk. Many women seek support in recovering from post-abortion distress, often years after the abortion. Project Rachel, The Healing Choice, and The National Office for Reconciliation and Healing are among the many therapeutic options that have evolved in the wake of widely- practised abortion. Women's marital or partner or family relationships can be significantly affected by abortion. After abortion, many relationships come to an end, and if the woman stays with her partner or husband, sexual dysfunction often results as does difficulty bonding with children born later on. When a woman or adolescent girl has been coerced into having an abortion, typical reactions include feelings of betrayal (by partners or family members), anger, depression, sadness, and breakdown of trust and intimacy in relationships. Some men are negatively affected and sense a loss of control and pride, especially when their partner has had an abortion without their being consulted "Suppressed mourning" has very negative outcomes, often leading to feelings of numbness and/or hostility and anger, and to difficulties in forming future relationships and in bonding with later-born children; in some instances, post-abortion trauma can lead to actual abuse of later children. (1) It is clear my case has a better logical, ethical, and moral basis than Pro's. Vote Con.Anime OP:http://tinyurl.com...;1. http://tinyurl.com...

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

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

negative: Euthanasia is Ethical Subject- Today's debate is centering around the ethicality of euthanasia and whether or not it's process should be practiced throughout the world. Although today's main argument will be about " Voluntary Euthanasia" Euthanasia- (from the Greek: εὐθανασία meaning "good death", eu (well or good), thanatos (death)) refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Ethicality- in accordance with principles of conduct that are considered correct, esp those of a given profession or group. Voluntary- proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent Like other terms borrowed from history, "euthanasia" has had different meanings depending on usage. The first apparent usage of the term "euthanasia" belongs to the historian Suetonius who described how the Emperor Augustus, "dying quickly and without suffering in the arms of his wife, Livia, experienced the 'euthanasia' he had wished for. "The word "euthanasia" was first used in a medical context by Francis Bacon in the 17th century, to refer to an easy, painless, happy death, during which it was a "physician's responsibility to alleviate the 'physical sufferings' of the body." Bacon referred to an "outward euthanasia""the term "outward" he used to distinguish from a spiritual concept"the euthanasia "which regards the preparation of the soul." Euthanasia conducted with the consent of the patient is termed voluntary euthanasia. Active voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Passive voluntary euthanasia is legal throughout the U.S. per Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. When the patient brings about his or her own death with the assistance of a physician, the term assisted suicide is often used instead. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Montana Premises of Debate: Round 1- Acceptance Round 2- Presentation of Main Argument Round 3 & 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Conclusions "Let the games begin!" ;D

negative: Euthanasia Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. 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...) 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 weather 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 judgemental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. (http://www.vatican.va...) My opponent brings up that the Netherlands case is irrelevant, but the study is still a study. Though they may not have the same culture or morals they are more like US than Africans. (not trying to be racist, but it’s a simple fact) If my opponent still does not choose to accept my Neatherlands graph then I shall present one from Oregon and it shows the exact same trend My opponent brings up that since we euthanize animals then why don't we euthanize humans. The answer to this question is simple when looking at this from a moral standpoint. She is also right to say that you cannot put a price on a life. When religion is applied God gave humans dominion over the Earth and all animals upon it. Thus it is justifiable for humans to kill animals. When it comes to humans it is immoral to play God and kill a human being and determine the day which he meets his/her maker. Hence why one of the 10 Commandments is "Thou shall not kill" and we all know that euthanasia is a "mercy" killing. We also do tons of crazy things to animals that we do not do to ourselves like testing new pesticides on and desease treatments/testings. Also when you see the new technology coming out everyday to wake people from comas it really makes it irrelivant and irresponsable to kill someone like Terri Schiavo where you only had to wait a while and then she woke up after the doctor had pulled the plug. Contention 2: Slippery Slope Argument My opponent misinterprets my argument by saying that all doctors are to go on a killing spree and that we will have a society like in the Giver where we euthanize all of the senior citizens, because they cannot contribute to society anymore. No this is incorrect. I'm simply showing how legalizing this will lead to more as society gets to accept it as a norm. Like how the process of "Unwinding" is gloabally accepted though we would view it as apalling! (Unwind by Neil Shusterman). It's social acceptable, because society has accepted it as a norm and has been used to it for so long. 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. Contention 3: Giving the healing doctor a killing role. My opponent states that my fear of the doctor is irreliant, but pounder this; why are children afraid of clowns? Many actually point to two prominate and well known clowns, Pennywise from It by Stephen King and Bozo the Clown. Bozo the clown who turned out to be a prominate serial killer and Pennywise is a self explanitory one, but these two caused a major fear of clowns and the same can be done to demonize doctors. (http://zidbits.com...) My opponent likes to give statistics here so I'l use her very source to give you some of these facts. 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 So it appears from Pro's own source that the numbers appear to show that the numbers are actually saying the opposite of what she is trying to say. (http://euthanasia.procon.org...)

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

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

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

negative: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Euthanasia. 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...)

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

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

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

negative: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal 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.

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

negative: Doctor assisted suicide 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...

negative: Winter Regular tournament R1: Resolved, the USFG should legalize Euthanasia For this round I shall only provide my opening arguments as my rebuttals will be in my next round. Libertarian Grim Dark FrameworkThroughout history people have been inspired to make inventions to help the masses and progress soceity. Though the sad fact is tha the government hasn't always used these inventions to the best of their use in order to help people. The Guillotine being one of the greatest examples of a doctor creating an invention for a more humane way for prisoner executions. He had no idea that the Revolutionaries would use this to execute thousands in the Reign of Terror. He had no idea that France would use this to silence their political opposition. Peter Jensen has seen his invention of the loud speaker to turn into a massive invasion of privacy and brainwashing as Hitler took the project and changed it to how he saw fit. Euthanasia. Even though there's a good intention behind the practice history has shown that if you give the government the power of the invention via legalization that it will be used for the wrong reason. Many great authors have already begun to forecast this. The best example is that of "The Giver" where the weak are killed off via infantcide and the old are euthanized. There is already a beginning of a mounting support for the practice of eugenics and if this becomes legalized then it will enlarge the government and allow them to infrindge on the rights of their citizens and even take their lives. In this debate I will show why it shouldn't be legalized as we are already seeing this fall from grace and it is our job of this generation to halt this trampling of our rights before we give the government another weapon like the Guillotine or even the Dark Net. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1] Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. [2] A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. Contention 2: The Slippery Slope ArgumentKeown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, “If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia. ” However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. [3] . ) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. [4]The euthanasia’s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia’s have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing? "From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain. "From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases. "From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" [5]You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]:42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicidePhysician Characteristics:79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicidePhysicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South[7] and [8]Contention 3: Self Ownership and SicknessConsent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia’s have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round)Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. [9]For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. [10]Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, "“it is thegreatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right andwrong. ” [11]This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society. Due to me running out of characters my sources will be presented in the comments section.