Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Should voluntary euthanasia be legalised within hospitals?

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Education
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
1,000
Contender / Con
0
1496
rating
159
debates
26.73%
won
Description
~ 4,156 / 5,000

This is a values debate. The case line of either Con or Pro contestants must be clear and concise. The key ideas in the main line should answer;
- Why
- Or state; Because...
F
or this debate, there will need to be a clear introduction for both sides. An introduction should state a resolution, explain how certain words will be used(defining), and state major arguments.

Example: (Resolution = The resolution for debate today is this house regrets the war on drugs. ( Caseline = As the opposition, we know that illegal drugs are horrible and we must use any means necessary to reduce their use. We must say no to drugs in every way we can. I will prove that illegal drugs pose a threat to society and that our current strategy is reducing their availability. Also, I will prove that alternative strategies contribute to making these dangerous drugs unacceptable.

We will start by stating and labelling the argument. Also in this round, contestants will expand and explain why their argument is true, expand and explain your position a bit, provide evidence for your argument, and then finally explain how this evidence ties back to your original topic/thesis/case line.

Example: Our first argument is that significantly increasing consequences for young offenders is bad because it makes things worse for youth and society alike. The major Canadian study of the subject was published this year by the University de Montreal. The study found that after following up with a variety of youth for twenty years that "delinquent behaviour is contagious, especially among adolescents". The study also found jailing teens makes it 37% more likely that they will become re-offenders as adults. This proves that jailing young offenders does not reduce crime and actually increases it, putting young offenders and society in a much more despondent position.

After each side makes their position clear on where they stand, contestants are allowed to prepare for a clash which will be against specific arguments or evidence, a clash that attacks multiple arguments with one idea, or /and clash the other opponent by showing how one main idea attacks a whole part of an opponents case(caseline clash).

Example of a clash: My opponent is arguing that by allowing a doctor to assist with a death with dignity that this is somehow compromising our medical system. They are also arguing that there will be a tremendous pressure on the doctor. However, doctors already have the option not to necessitate their patients. So this in fact is not causing any of the problems that the opposition has brought forth. (Global clash = Furthermore, this is actually giving a choice to these people to have control over their own body. This is what this debate really comes down to, 'Do people reserve the right to make their own choices'. ( Caseline clash = Now, the opposition believes the government should protect people from themselves. However, on the side of proposition we know that people reserve the right to make their own decisions.

Also in this round will be a rebuttal in where clashing will occur and summary of arguments occur. Rebuttals should include the following;

Example of rebuttal: (Summary = Today we proved to you that nuclear energy is a green safe choice. I argue that modern nuclear energy has a great safety record and does not contribute to nuclear weapons. My partner proved that it is in fact a green technology and that we need to rely less on coal. (Clash = However, my opponents did not agree. They said we should use wind turbines and solar energy. This is all fine, but what happens when there is not enough wind for the production of energy? What will happen in the winter when days are shorter and light energy cannot be used ? Like I said, we need to have reliable power. Nuclear energy doesn't change, it always gives you the same amount, my opponents also said that it gives radioactive waste. This is not true, evidence for our argument for nuclear energy provide that waste is stored within rocks, which aid in containing the waste from our atmosphere, contributing to global warming. That is why this resolution must stand, thank you.

Round 1
Pro
Forfeited
Con
I want to quote from Wikipedia here  about the Hippocratic oath.

"The Hippocratic Oath is an oath of ethics historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts.

I think the idea of euthanasia in hospitals is hypocritical. It goes against the very nature of the physician's oath that the medicine and health takes principle on.

As we'll learn continuing on about the essence of this oath. Let's read on.



So the main takeaway here is doing no harm. Euthanizing is killing which goes with the greatest amount of harm. When harm accumulates enough, the result is death .

Wanting no harm to come to a child possibly avoiding the harm to escalate to fatality is what it is. This is what doctors do to avoid fatality with their patients.They implement medical emergency procedures to avoid this . To turn around to implement euthanasia is paradoxical. It's a contradicting practice.

A doctor that preserves a life extracting harm, that same doctor, same day will take one inflicting harm .


Round 2
Pro


Going forwards with the argument of 'preserving life' only is admitting that it is not for the patient that their life is being preserved, though it is to adhere to an empty rule of the Hippocratic Oath. Where does the patient's suffering come into this if their life is preserved though they are miserable and have no other means of dying gracefully and painlessly? Should it not be that they themselves have a decision over how they live? If they want to live at all? How much pain they are willing to suffer? Where do the rights of the individual come in? That is where voluntary/non-voluntary euthanasia comes in. It is an option that they should have after following a certain plan. This maintains the integrity of medical environments as well as, and specifically, the integrity of the suffering patients.

Con
I don't know what is meant by "Where does the patient's suffer come into this".

The patient is admitted to the hospital for pain. The patient has been in there let's say six months with barely any alleviation . Not much of any discomfort has been eradicated.

All the doctor can do according to what doctors do is heal. They have to keep at it.

The patients can kill themselves. They can decide that. But I'm a doctor and it's not in my business to do that. It's just as straightforward as that. What am I in business for ?

That's the question because the topic is regarding euthanasia in hospitals. Key term there is hospital.

A person as you may know may choose to commit suicide. Inside a hospital or maybe after they're released. If the doctor can't do anything further, they released the individual perhaps with some sort of pain prescription in attempt to ease things. That person at anytime can decide to euthanize themselves. Just don't ask a practicioner of medicine, health and wellness to assist.




Round 3
Pro
"The patients can kill themselves. They can decide that. But I'm a doctor and it's not in my business to do that. It's just as straightforward as that. What am I in business for ?" 

This is exactly the whole point. If the patient is so chronically ill, to the point that they do not have the capabilities of putting themselves in danger or killing themselves, shouldn't you be the one to do it in order to lessen and cause no more harm? This comes back to our live debate about the father who killed their son who was suffering inhumane amounts of pain. If this is not legalised for hospitals, how else will they be able to administer a drug that kills painfully? The father should not have to suffer the wrath of law, since we established that euthanasia is a good thing for patients as a last resort, it is ethical. Since you have not fought against this argument, why would it not be right?

Con
"This is exactly the whole point. If the patient is so chronically ill, to the point that they do not have the capabilities of putting themselves in danger or killing themselves, shouldn't you be the one to do it in order to lessen and cause no more harm? "

It depends on what a person signs up for. We know killing them does the ultimate harm.

"If this is not legalised for hospitals, how else will they be able to administer a drug that kills painfully?"

Legalizing killing folks which is legal for folks death row .

"euthanasia is a good thing for patients as a last resort, it is ethical. "

This is subjective.

"Since you have not fought against this argument, why would it not be right?"

I can't answer that because I'm not arguing about what is and not right.

Outside of what is right or correct for what a doctor is.

This is the bottom line.
I'm not getting an argumentation against the nature of a doctor.

Round 4
Pro


"Legalizing killing folks which is legal for folks death row ."

This has nothing to do with death row. We're talking about patients chronically ill which do not have any other means of a painless death other than being administrated, by a doctor. Otherwise, it would be illegal.


"This is subjective. "

How? Since you couldn't prove why it was wrong, we established that it isn't. I already clashed against your Hippocratic Oath argument and you moved on talking about how you think it just shouldn't be something done in hospitals, you're not proving, adequately or at all, that you're against the nature of euthanasia.


The whole point of this is arguing if it is wrong or right. If it is ethical and relevant to the situation of ill patients, why shouldn't it be legalised and initiated within hospitals? If you can't prove its wrongness or irrelevancy then you're not making a point about anything. 

Con

This is the bottom line.
I'm not getting an argumentation against the nature of a doctor.

So I'll just say this flat out , plain and simple as I said if you recall on the live debate.

What is the doctor in business for?

The topic has to do with this being in hospitals. It's not euthanasia in general for people and the ethics thereof .

I say as well as any doctor would, it is wrong for them to perform euthanasia on people because it's out of their profession .

Any doctor outside of an animal doctor would say that.

This is what I'll have you and others that are struggling to understand. It is simply not the job of a doctor.

Nice and simple. You can argue that it's technicalities, not ethics. But is my position justified?

It should not be done, euthanasia in hospitals as it is not a place for it. So it should not be done in them.

Only other place I can think of that is a place for it is death row hence broached.

Round 5
Pro
Forfeited
Con
I'll say this in closing. I didn't get a single argument against the nature of hospitals and doctors. Not in the live debate, not here.

There is no argument against it. In what sound world could you by right argue against somebody's job or profession?

You won't find a single doctor, healthcare professional that has signed up to take away life. Those that have signed up are not doctors. They don't practice to heal.

Euthanasia doesn't belong in hospitals like men that don't belong in women's restrooms.

Not the place for it. The place for killing folks is on death row. If the topic was suffering inmates on death row, that isn't a place for healing so you could make a case.

Doctors and hospitals aim to preserve life, not extinguish it.