Joined: 20 October 2004
The Topic is Euthanasia/Mercy Killing
(in the case of a person with an interminable illness)
The 'for' participants (Yes, Mercy Killing is justified) are:
The 'against' participants (No, Mercy Killing is not justified) are:
Before we begin, let me reiterate the rules for this debate. Contestants are advised to make themselves familiar with the rules:
Rules for the Debating Championship
1. The debate starts today and will remain open for 48 hours. Afterwards it will be locked.
2. Except for this opening post, the thread is only for the four contestants. All other posts, comments, or statements of any kind will be trashed (With the exception of dev. team intervention, only if the situation arises).
3. Each side will have a color for their fonts – the 'For' side will post in Navy Blue – (# 000099); the 'Against' team will post in Maroon (# 990000). Let us know if you have different preferences.
4. Everyone, please use size 3 Arial font in bold.
5. When quoting your opponent or your team mate, please write outside the quote box. Judges will only read the material outside the box –in grey background as yours.
6. If the quote already has a quote, please delete all previous quotes other than what you are referring to. Box within box within box is too much to keep track of.
7. You will all of course be civil and courteous to each other.
8. When possible, please give reference and web site as foot note with markers in the text, like you have in any standard textbook. This is a must if you post an article or someone else's work that supports your debate.
9. Use proper English.
10. When possible, please proof-read in a word program before posting. Editing already posted posts is not allowed.
11. Do not write 'one word response' that is just your reaction e.g. 'Duh!' or 'Puh-leaze' by itself. Follow it up with some fact or logic or insight.
12. Use pictures to demonstrate something and not as ornamental value. What we want is your eloquence not photo-editorial skills.
13. There is no limit in the word count or number of posts any given side can make. Feel free to post as many arguments/rebuttals needed to prove your and your partner's point.
Competition starts on August 17, 2007 at 1:30AM EST and will end 48 hours after that.
Good Luck and Enjoy,
DM Dev. Team ( ~LiL*PrInCeZ~ , MNMS , Raj5000 , Tisha_G )
Joined: 18 June 2006
Joined: 18 June 2006
Joined: 18 June 2006
Retro Podcast Team
Joined: 13 April 2006
Ok. I just came to Univ. and saw the topic open. I will do further research from home but here are my thoughts. Some of my observations are as a medical student working in hospital, not that I know much about it.
Why are we playing God here?? What next??
Euthanasia simply means "the act of causing death painlessly to end suffering". Euthanasia is not legalized in most countries. Even if the patient consents, it is still a murder it is still murder and a felony. According to the 1965 'Murder Act', a person can be convicted of murder only if it is proved that the accused had premeditated the crime. When a doctor assists a patient in dying and has the consent of the patient, the crime becomes premeditated. Dr. Jack Kevorkian is now in prison on charges of 2nd degree murder, for helping Tom Youk to terminate his existence. While it may be ones right to take his or her own life, it is only their right. Another reason why euthanasia should not be legalized is that children and adults who were unable to make their own choices could deliberately be killed. There have been cases indeed of patient backing off. There is also at times pressure from the family who have had enough for the patient to sign the consent form. This is a fact so noone can dely it.The Board of the Royal Dutch Medical Association, sanctioned euthanasia on babies and toddlers who had severe disabilities. In the Netherlands today, over 10,000 citizens, carry "Do Not Euthanize Me" cards in case they're unpredictably admitted to the hospital. In the United States, all patients, like Terri Schiavo who are brain-disabled, would be killed. Not too long ago, the American Journal of Medicine surveyed 1,664 critically ill patients, on how many of them would want CPR if their hearts stopped. 72 percent of the patients wanted to be brought back, 27 percent would rather be in a coma than have died, and 42 percent were willing to stay on respirators for the rest of their lives. If euthanasia were to become legalized, it would not only be legalized murder, but a form of genocide. This genocide would wipe out all human beings unable to make decisions for themselves, such as babies/infants, the mentally disabled, the mentally unstable, and patients in a coma or continual vegetable state.
We have powerful drugs that heavily sedate a patient so the patient passes on painlessly. This was indeed administered on my beloved momAlso:
Working with hospitals I have found often families are unaware of the type and sort of home care and personal care that can be provided to a patient. Indeed we were not aware of the many cares that my mom could have had at home till it was her last days. The most important person who can direct families to the right channels is their medical doctor. This does take a l ot of pressure off families when, say a nurse comes home for 4 hours to bath, clean, administer medicine and feed the patient.
Thanks. I will return later tonight after school
Joined: 27 January 2007
Hello UDman and GuardianAngel.
Here are some reasons why I believe in euthanasia:
1) We all know that terminally ill patients whose survival chances are nil does go through immense pain in the last few days and especially hours. Keeping aside Hippocratic oath and the idea of playing God for the moment, I'll just like to ask, which is more humane, asking the patient to go through all the pain and face it bravely or ending everything before that moment arrives.
2) Secondly, since we live in a free world certainly we have the right to refuse the use of ventilators or medicines. Similarly we can also demand for drugs which we know will end our life, whether the doctor will comply or not is obviously upto him.
3) Thirdly, the economic angle. Those who have money and can support medication for any period of time has all the right to go on with their treatment. But those who don't have the means and knows all they're spending will ultimately be futile (in case of terminally ill patients) certainly should have the right to discontinue treatment. Because if the treatment continues then the patient will die in his own time but by that time the other family members will be so deep in debts that they'll either die of poverty or will be pushed into what is known as the vicious cycle of poverty. Is it worth it to prolong the life of a person who's anyway going to die after some days at the cost of others who're perfectly healthy but will be slowly pushed towards death because of him.
If the treatment is discontinued, then which one is the better option, to let the patient die even more painfully because there is nothing to ease his pain or to speed up his death and let him go.
4) Sometimes terminally ill patients try to commit suicide by hanging or jumping from hospital window, it's much safer and less painful to let them choose death through physician assisted suicide.
Joined: 27 January 2007
If the studies varied so much within one year then they're not statistically significant, is all I can say.
This leads to my second piece of evidence; another study, done by the same web page, found that out of eight hundred eighty- six patients, only four percent of them asked for their death even after counseling. The rest of the ninety six percent were still alive five years later.
Still alive five years later, but in what state?? Noone is asking for the rights of euthanasia of a patient who can be perfectly healthy and live for another five years.
Second, the Right to Life organization's web site had a poll. The result of it was that seventy four percent of doctors would refuse to perform euthanasia on their patient.
So, what does this poll prove?? 74% of the doctor's included in that study were anti-euthanasia just like you are but that doesn't prove anything. Moreover, what was the total sample and how can we be sure that the study deliberately didn't include more doctors having anti-euthanasia feelings??
Another poll, done by the American Society of Clinical Oncology from www.euthanasia.com found that forty five percent of doctors supported physician- assisted suicide in 1995. However, in 1998, support went all the way down to twenty-two percent.
Another study and again the results vary wildly. This proves that the study is not statistically significant, confidence level is very low so nothing can be predicted based on this. If the results swing this much then who can say that after three years the percentage of people favouring euthanasia won't go up.
We cannot let patients to die just because of depression;
Just depression?? Did anyone talk about euthanasia of patients of 'just depression'?? How about adding unbearable pain, not being able to do anything on their own, economic burden in case of economically weak people, and you'll get a whole new equation.
we cannot let patients die when doctors have no right to assist in the process and they are not willing to perform it anyway;
Who're we to make choices for the patient if he himself wants to die?? And who're we to deny him his choice when even through treatment we can't give him any better option??
and finally, we cannot let patients die for a hospital's economical advantage! Though death is a truth we must all face at one point, we should live life to its fullest, not end it in the middle with physician- assisted suicide.
Why does it have to be only about hospital's economic advantage, how about the economic advantage of the patient's own family?? Sympathies for the patient is all fine but who's going to feed the family members??
Joined: 27 January 2007
This genocide would wipe out all human beings unable to make decisions for themselves, such as babies/infants, the mentally disabled, the mentally unstable, and patients in a coma or continual vegetable state.
Will be really interested to know what made you think that all babies/infants will be wiped out. Moreover euthanasia in case of patients whose condition can be reversed. i.e., they can become normal again are not part of euthanasia debate. But patients who are in continual vegetable state or mentally disabled and have no chance of being normal again, as long as their family cares for them it's ok, but if they are to be cared for by the state then obviously it has to be seen that of what use are they to the society.
|Topics||Topic Starter||Replies||Views||Last Post|
|DM Debate Championship - Register soon!!||Anuradha||26||1324||06 May 2008 at 9:45am
|Debate Championship 6 Results-updated-pg4||~LiL*PrInCeZ~||29||1281||01 September 2007 at 3:50pm
|Winners of Debating Championship V||MNMS||27||1152||21 January 2007 at 3:45am
|Debate championship V - JUDGES thread||Morgoth||6||547||15 January 2007 at 10:59am
|Debate Championship V- Deadline:23rd Dec||MNMS||59||2568||04 January 2007 at 2:34pm