CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Euthanasia be Legal? If legal, what restrictions should apply if any?
"Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a quick, dignified, and compassionate death...
Opponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide contend that doctors have a moral responsibility to keep their patients alive as reflected by the Hippocratic Oath. They argue there may be a "slippery slope" from euthanasia to murder, and that legalizing euthanasia will unfairly target the poor and disabled and create incentives for insurance companies to terminate lives in order to save money. " -ProCon.org
Euthanasia should be legal a human should have the right to end his or her life if and when they have a desire to do so ; what right should a society have to interfere in our choice to end life ?
@Dermot. I largely agree with what you say here. Just to push a bit further, do you believe that "a human should have the right to end his or her life if and when they have a desire to do so..." at any age or should there be some form of age and/or conditional restriction like with Alcohol or driving say (again I live in the US so I'm not sure what your laws are in Ireland)? Also, would you be willing to broaden this to more general cases of euthanasia (to be legal)? If so, do you think their should be an age restriction on such a decision? Take a hypothetical example; If a 25 year old has been tremendously bullied their entire life (say for some deformity or disability that is permanent) to such an extend that they deem life so painful as to not be worth it (and they've tried psychotherapy, anti-depressants, ect. for years to no avail), should it be legal to be able to get "doctor assisted suicide" under these conditions? What if they were 17, 14, 10, ect.? That is, what kind of legal framework would you have around this issue?
Euthanasia is illegal in the Republic of Ireland and is deemed manslaughter or murder depending on the situation; it carries a sentence of life imprionment depending again on circumstances.
For me if a person has passed the age of 25 and is capable of making informed decisions about matters that pertain to his/ her needs , preferences and lifestyle that person should then have a legal and moral right to do as she or he feels fit with the rest of their lives .
To me this means if a person regardless of physical health finds their life so dreadful and miserable why should they not be allowed to end it ?
Society again claims people who kill themselves have " lost their minds " what a ridiculous statement , if a persons life is just never ending misery the most sensible option would be to end it .
I'm glad you asked the question because it's yet another that has people like the hunger question flailing about with the stock answers displayed by herd mentality where all the usual tired statements are thrown about like confetti at a wedding
There seems to be this perverse form of " morality " in action where prolonging suffering of an individual seems to be deemed noble or the moral thing to do , it's not it's interfering with an individual's right to self determination and it seems to me like the abortion question in that society again attempts to tell a woman what she may or may not do with her own body .
Victims of Dementia , Alzheimer's and other horrendous afflictions of a similar nature should be put out of their misery as a duty and necessity of a caring society , their quality of life is zero and the act of prolonging life is normally family members who wish to hold onto the last vestige of human life thus causing more suffering for the unfortunate person who is now a mere shell of their former self .
All hope is gone for these unfortunate people who have not even got dignity in a merciful death ; if it was an animal going through such suffering society would screech and wail at the callousness of people who kept such a beast in a state of abject suffering
My views are not popular but I suggest in years to come will be seen as obvious and perfectly acceptable and reasonable views to hold in a so called just society
@Dermot. I agree with essentially everything you said and definitely the framework that you established.
The age of 25 that you submitted I believe is sensible because we know that the average human brains wiring to the frontal lobes are the last area to develop with the bulk of it occurring through the ages 21-25 years old. Furthermore, it has been shown that development continues for the entirety of the second decade and even into the beginning of the third decade. The cognitive capacity given by this is imperative to make a rational decision on such a big life or death issue. So, this is just to say, I agree with your age of 25 years old but would also be willing to entertain arguments of raising the age to 30 years old say.
"Society again claims people who kill themselves have " lost their minds " what a ridiculous statement , if a persons life is just never ending misery the most sensible option would be to end it ."
Agreed. I think it is really a tremendous failure of empathy on people's behalf not to imagine the kinds of "living Hell" some people can (and unfortunately often* do) potentially find themselves in. And, as you point out, there is nothing in principle irrational about a person wanting overwhelming amounts of pain/suffering to end (particularly if there does not appear to be any "light at the end of the tunnel"). In fact, as you say, it could be quite sensible provided a framework of dreadful circumstances. A healthy society should have compassion and understanding toward such people instead of having a cold, condescending attitude as a final "insult to injury".
"Victims of Dementia , Alzheimer's and other horrendous afflictions of a similar nature should be put out of their misery as a duty and necessity of a caring society , their quality of life is zero and the act of prolonging life is normally family members who wish to hold onto the last vestige of human life thus causing more suffering for the unfortunate person who is now a mere shell of their former self ."
The only thing that gives me pause about this statement is that Neurodegenerative disorders are on a continuum for what extent it is effecting a persons mind. In my view, extreme cases of the kind you suggest where "their quality of life is zero...the unfortunate person who is now a mere shell of their former self " then I 100% agree with you (I certainly would not want to live like that if I had a choice). When we get into more grey areas of such conditions, I think it becomes more difficult to determine unless the person could give clear consent in some way (either in a prior will in case of such a situation or being lucid enough still).
Hi xMathFanx , in society views like ours are not popular but I believe may be gaining popularity and could be another example of the ever evolving concept ow what societies deem " moral " .
Regards Allzeimers , Dementia and such afflictions it would be advantageous if we knew the personal wishes of our loved ones in the event of them being struck by such a dreadful affliction .
I've worked in the past in Hopices , cancer hospitals and homes for the severely retarded and handicapped Ive seen suffering one would not permit an animal to go through as it would be deemed the essence of cruelty ; yet people like me and you are perceived by a fair few as inhumane monsters !
I've watched a family member suffering with dementia and it's something I would not wish on my worst enemy ; my own mother had a terrible fear of it and asked me never to let her go through that , thankfully it never happened .
I totally agree regarding consent being given prior to such a dreadful affliction affecting an individual
I'm sorry to hear about the unfortunate experiences you have had to both witness and live through seeing your family member suffer dementia and also working in the type of hospital environments that you describe. Having personal contact to specific social issues is powerful and can open ones eyes (out of necessity) to severe deficits of our modern society that I tend to agree with you when you say "in society views like ours are not popular but I believe may be gaining popularity and could be another example of the ever evolving concept ow what societies deem " moral. "
Thank you xMathFanx , believe it or not it was in hindsight a life altering experience for the good as in it gives you a marvellous insight into aspects of life that are normally something one only hears about ; the truly amusing thing for me is I detest watching a fellow human or animal suffering yet am deemed a " monster " for suggesting an alleviation to unnecessary suffering
Out of curiosity (and if you are willing to share), are your views on Euthanasia a topic that you have tried to bring up with people in "real life" with bad results? Or are the poor results to bringing up this topic coming largely from online forums? It seems from your previous post that other members of your family (e.g. your Mother) were "forced" to give this issue some thought considering the contact they made with it, I'm sure this is something you discussed with them at some point (or there may be an "in-the-closet" game going on where nobody really wants to openly confront the issue for fear of how it may be received)? Do various members of your family see things quite differently or other staff at the hospitals you worked at (or is it just not typically discussed in any meaningful way)?
Of course I'm willing to share 👌 Our society is very open regards discussing most matters but like most societies deeply divided on issues such as this ; I've never had any problem with expressing my views and if people are outraged I don't care as outrage and taking offence do not in any way attempt to address the issues at hand ; it seems trigger issues like this yet again invoke the rage of the sheeple who refuse to think for themselves.
My wife would have totally different views and she's a Catholic yet we get on like a house on fire and can accept each other's view point and she does laugh when I accuse her of herd mentality; she and family members say things like " well what you say seems to make sense but ........." and all the usual tired arguments come to the fore .
In hospitals like mainstream society the views were in the majority against euthanasia the decision normally being informed by so called " religious morality" interfering where it has no right to .
No offence but the worst people I've ever debated these topics online with are Americans who seem to be going through a finger wagging puritanical phase in their societal evolution if online debate is anything to go by ; I lived in the states many years ago and to me then the people seemed more easy going and open to debate on these matters , I'm more afraid of American fundies than I am of hardline Muslims 😂
In societies at the moment people will put a suffering animal out of its misery but deny the same " luxury " to a human , this is a societal madness .
@Dermot. I think American's have really been indoctrinated into the idea of "American Exceptionalism" to an extent that far surpasses most/other that of other nations upbringing/education/indoctrination. For instance, the example of dropping the nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII is a perfect example of this (and one that has been talked about on CD recently). From the perspective of most American's (people who live in the US that is); the US did the just act by using Nuclear Weapons, saved lives on all sides of the war (both Allied and Axis powers), destroyed fascism essentially single handedly, benevolently allowed Japan (and other Axis powers) to surrender instead of destroy them completely, swooped in and saved the Holocaust victims at the first opportunity they had, held the Nuremberg trials in which ONLY the Nazis committed War Crimes, nearly single handedly constructed the UN and benevolently conceded power to the mutually agreed upon International Organization and its laws, magnanimously initiated the Marshall Plan to rebuild War-torn Europe including our enemies (out of no self-interested impulses whatsoever), and the rest of the World should be forever grateful for this as well as the "spread of Democracy" military interventions that soon followed.
You can probably see that there are ALOT of problems with this interpretation of History and it is what is officially taught in US public schools with very little deviation even in most college classrooms. If you (as a US citizen) deviate from this in any significant or semi-significant manner it is considered blasphemy, un-patriotic, unfounded anti-American hatred, essentially on par with Conspiracy Theory type of sh't. Furthermore, this is the lens by which most Americans generally view all US military interventions in our History as well as acts on the world stage broadly (with few exceptions). There is some discussion about internal issues in the US however, as I said, as far as our place in the World there is largely complete agreement by most (definitely the 2 major parties) except for those more on the margins.
Hi X , thank you for that fascinating insight into " American Exceptionalism " . When I talk to Americans regards world History it's like we are speaking a different language as History as taught over here seems to be a totally different History.
You're spot on with what you say the amount of times one hears the term Anti American used to anyone or anything that's deemed a threat to mainstream thinking is staggering.
Over here the government are introducing philosophy classes into all the schools so as to give kids a basic understanding of how to go about thinking effectively for themselves ; we went through hell in previous generations where the Catholic church had influence in every decision our government made and influenced greatly thinking on everything, thankfully that's but a distant memory and now we are a thriving multicultural society where the church is now toothless .
The one issue that always staggers people over here regarding America is guns universally people are baffled by the arguments from the pro side , I don't even debate it anymore as the sheer hate and rage that's directed at one for merely asking is truly alarming .
I would love to read an American school text on History some time just to compare I'm sure it would be most interesting
@Dermot. "I would love to read an American school text on History some time just to compare I'm sure it would be most interesting"
There are two books (one has two volumes) I would recommend if you would like to get insight into the mainstream, traditionally accepted views of US history and Modern World History that are pervasive in American culture both by the same author and are very popular here (Bestsellers):
You could probably find them for free online either in public domain book sites (e.g. Open Library) or through your local library system (if that applies in your community).
It would definitely give you a lot of insight into how most Americans (including the ones in Power like our Presidents, Senators, ect.) view US history and the place of the United States on the World Stage. Even if you just flipped through and read a few particularly relevant chapters here and there you may find you get a lot out of the experience (and it is like an "alternative history" in many ways). Now, there is some criticism of this view (a few of which have some popularity), however, the standard accepted views in American society align with what you would find in those books (again, they are very popular here, #1 New York Times booklist Bestseller) and if you deviate from that standard view it is often seen as Conspiracy Theory type of sh't.
Thanks very much X , just for fun I put a search up it's a funny review and not at all favourable ; I will give it a go though just to see thanks again
Maybe a debate topic on this book would lead to some " interesting "😳exchanges
This is an issue of basic self determination combined with allowing a legal framework for how to be assisted without the assistant going to jail for doing it.
Criteria such as:
1) The requestor must be a legal adult of sound mind
2) Have severe pain coupled with an illness believed by doctors to be terminal
3) Have already tried medical and therapeutic treatment without relief
4) The means of death must be as quick and painless as possible
There could be a few more but you get the point.
Oregon already has had a process similar to what I describe. All the outlandish gloom and doom the opponents of euthanasia are disproved by the success in Oregon.
I think the legality should depend on the severity of the situation. If a clinically depressed person walks into a hospital and wants to be euthanized, that shouldn't be allowed, since clinical depression can be remedied and dealt with.
However, I have heard of circumstances where one's circumstances of health are so bad, that it's the only option they could think of. For example, if someone steps on a landmine. Quadruple amputee, loss of sight, hearing, smell, taste... Inability to live, essentially... I could see that being a situation in which euthanasia would be acceptable.
@ JaceCarsonne. I think you laid out a respectable position that quite a number of people would be on board with. I would like to push you a bit further on your view that "If a clinically depressed person walks into a hospital and wants to be euthanized, that shouldn't be allowed, since clinical depression can be remedied and dealt with" in order to get your further thoughts on the topic. Firstly, I largely agree with this statement at least for the first time or first few times a person appeals for such a request. Depressed people do not necessarily have their best judgement at the time. I would point out, there are forms of clinical depression that can failed to be remedied and given long term chronic depression such as extreme forms of Persistent Depressive Disorder. Now, I would refer to a former post of mine to illustrate a hypothetical to engage with; consider a person who is now 35 years old and "...has been tremendously bullied..." and socially ostracized "...their entire life (say for some deformity...that is permanent) to such an extend that they deem life so painful..." as to not be perpetually losing struggle that is not worth it. "They've tried psychotherapy, anti-depressants, ect. for years to no avail" and have discussed this and a desire for the pain of life to end with the psychiatrist(s) who has been unable to provide a working solution to the problem for the past 2 decades or so. Should it be legal to be able to get "doctor assisted suicide" under these conditions (after some kind of formal appeal process that has been ongoing for quite a number of years; 10 years say), or rather to hang in there as best as possible?
That is good to hear. I just looked up the Death With Dignity Act after you mentioned it, apparently 5 states and D.C. have Dignity statuses. This is a step in the right direction in my opinion.
Yes. If there is zero chance of recovery and your death is going to be long and painful with the quality of life only being acceptable with heavy medication, yes you should be able to choose a peaceful death. There must be certain requirements met however, such as the person choosing death being of sound mind.
A lot of people think it's in Gods hands but if that were the case we wouldn't be medicating to extend life anyways.
Assuming you mean for humans not animals, I think that if somebody has a terminal condition that is making them feel awful and miserable, they should have a right to end their suffering. Nobody wants the end of their life to be dragged out into a long spell of pain and sadness.
"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art" Hyppocrates
You should eat the raw meats for your strong vitamins. I eat them for 6 years and I am super good of the brains and muscles and am shitting very smooth. I was a vegan for some years too and it hurts me to think of the pain to this gay. I am hasking you to be like the cro magnons man nd eat some mammaf organs.
euthanasia should not be legal for many different reasons , I get if you want too end your life then euthanasia would kind of be helpful , with the amount of suicides rising each year but on the other hand life was given for a reason , it should be took care of and considered precious and finding help instead of doing something like euthanasia and hurting the ones around you, many people if you have a religion would say god has given this to you for a reason and imago dei meaning you are an image of god and bla bla bla but life should always be looked upon as sacred.
