CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:53
Arguments:55
Total Votes:53
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Why should Euthanasia be illegal ? (50)

Debate Creator

Dermot(5736) pic



Why should Euthanasia be illegal ?

Add New Argument
2 points

For pets?

If the pet isn't able to function due to some debilitating disease, advanced age or injury, it's the kindest way to release them from their life. Good.

If the pet is just annoying, is perfectly healthy but you don't want to care for it anymore. Bad.

For humans.....

Really....the same scenario's as a pet I suppose.

For criminals.

Hmmm....it gets a little sticky here. If the crime committed is so atrocious and there is NO doubt that the person is guilty of it then I tend to lean towards a death sentence, but is that really euthanasia....?

I'm assuming you mean for humans. I don't think "mercy killings" is such a bad thing depending on the circumstances. I remember reading an article once and I'll see if I can find it....a mother suffocated her own child (young teen I believe) because the doctors would not let him die. He had a debilitating disease, there was no recovery from it and he was in pain daily.

There are a few other instances just from the brief search I've done, and it was brief, where a people have had to basically commit murder because the doctor's will not allow their loved ones to die with dignity, even when those loved ones are non-responsive and can't function at all.

Personally, my grandfather died a miserable death. The doctor's kept throwing medicine at him and all he wanted to do was go peacefully. Instead they milked his insurance (sorry that's my bitterness showing) for all they could and he ended up leaving us by his mind first, then his body.

1 point

Hi Mint , yes I'm more concerned with humans who have on quality of life and are just being kept alive because the society they live in deems it correct and fitting , I think its inhumane and cruel .

1 point

It IS inhumane. Quantity of life isn't as important as quality, a lot of people have that backwards. I'd rather live a shorter life actually living it than a longer one but in constant pain or completely impaired.

1 point

It shouldn't. Dr. Korvakian (sp?) had it right. It should be one of our CHOICES, within regulations, to end OUR suffering. Forcing us to be in a vegetative state is just as, if not MORE cruel!

A couple of months ago my own mother (@99), went through it. She had congestive heart failure, went under drugs for nearly a month, wasn't allowed food or water for the last two weeks. Watching her suffer for nearly a month was, in a word, CRUEL! Not just to her, but to those of us who had to watch. But then, $9000 a month can't be sneezed at, can it? We must get all we can while we can .... it's just good business. :-0

2 points

My sympathies on the loss of your mother .I to know what It is like to watch one suffer unnecessarily , I totally agree with you it's actually beyond cruel as family have to watch someone they love go through dreadful torment and all for what ?

I often wonder about society's the way a family pet is put out of its misery and yet family members who have no chance of recovery are made suffer this final indignity

2 points

I'm sorry to hear about your mother, I hope things are better for you with the rest of the family as well.

AlofRI(3294) Clarified
1 point

Thank you. Death at 99 is much easier to accept, forced suffering for what is called "moral reasons", is not. We don't (most of us), condone torture .... except for religious reasons. One day, hopefully, we will see another light.

1 point

The arguments against euthanasia include, what I consider the most important ones.

Who decides when someone's life should be extinguished?

Could such an apparent assisted suicide be used as a cover for murder, either by persuasion, or the more likely one of administering poison without the victim's consent or knowledge.

Perhaps the continuing advancements in medical science would have developed a cure for the debilitating disease which was making the suffers life a living hell on earth a short time after the assisted suicide.

In my opinion there is no clear cut, black and white answer to this controversial subject.

1 point

Yes , it's not an easy subject and passions can run high when talking about it . For me I guess when an individual has what could be deemed no quality of life and is merely being kept alive ,to me this is terribly cruel for the individual who is suffering and the extended family who also go through terrible anguish .

1 point

I would concur that it would be nigh impossible to watch a loved one living in a constant state of pain or near total paralysis.

On the other side of the coin to that we must consider the tremendous contribution such afflicted people like Stephen Hawkings has made to mankind's knowledge of the universe in which we all live.

1 point

There isn't a very good moral reason to denounce euthanasia as such. But euthanasia in practice leaves room for legal murder. If we can eliminate the potential for people to abuse the practice in order to get at a will, or otherwise remove the obstacle of anothers life, then it should be legal.

We must first ensure that euthanasia only takes place at the explicit, and fully understood request of the patient to which it pertains.

1 point

Yes , i don't know how one would ensure that abuses didn't happen.

What about cases though where one could not communicate their wishes at all ? As in severally handicapped people who have little or no quality of life and are merely being kept alive ?

Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

That is a difficult situation and I would need particulars to come to a conclusion. If it is a situation like thy stated above, where an individual is going to be "allowed" to die naturally, through starvation/dehydration, then I would say without doubt that a more humane end is justified. The requirement to first do no harm seems to be confused in that situation.

1 point

Definition of euthanasia :

The act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.

Definition clearly defines it as an act of killing ! Does it not ?

Dermot(5736) Clarified
1 point

Yes , mercy killing and your point is ?.............................

outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

So what we have is a Progressive that promotes killing ! What more is to be said !

outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

More to come there Progressive and i am going to like the Progressive Spin you will do ! Remember this as you wrote you are for mercy killings !