THBT: Voluntary Euthanasia shall be legalized.

Round 1
LianFex: "There are three kinds of Euthanasia:

Voluntary Euthanasia, which means that the person's death is at that person's request.

Non-voluntary euthanasia, which is the person is not capable of making a rational decision about their own fate (eg,new-born infants, people suffering senile dementia) and the decision to let them die or to end their life is taken on their own behalf because it is judged to be in their best interests.

And lastly, Involuntary euthanasia: the person is allowed to die or killed against their will.

See also: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...

The parameters are only to be set with the Voluntary Euthanasia which meaning is stated above.

I believe that if the person is in his or her death bed and that his or her life is only supported with machines, it is only merciful that we should at least end his or her pain. Also, since we gained the permission of the patient to perform euthanasia, which means that the person is either too tired to keep on fighting or that the person no longer wanted to be in pain, it is only natural that we should at least honor his or her request."

iamsano: "Hello Lianfex my name is sano and would like to go against your case.I hope we all gave gonna gain something at the end. I believe that euthanasia should not be legalized in any circunstance. Thanks for telling me about the different types but still feel that even under the one you chose, we should not legalized it. so maybe we can debate this on a general level by not referring to a single country but if you like you wanna choose a county, it is fine with me. I will like to hear from you and yeah then i reply with my arguments. have a nice day"

Round 2
LianFex: "Good day to you too, Mr. Sano.

Maybe we could say that we could legalized it in the Philippines (since that is my hometown). However, since this site is for all, which I mean would be world-wide, then defining which country it would be legalized might prove to be useless.

Since the parameter was set to be in the 'Voluntary Euthanasia', I believe that you should have mentioned 'why' you oppose to the status quo. It would be hard for me to rebuttal your argument since there is no 'real' argument in it that I could hardly oppose to what you might say.

Thank you very much and have a good day to you too."

iamsano: "Thanks for your reply and it is good we are taking the debate a global level without referring to one country. It is also good that you have based it only on voluntary euthanasia in which the patient chooses to live or die. I didn't have an argument because I was waiting for yours as the proposition to tell me all you want because you only stated that a person whose life is depending on machine for instance should decide to live or not. My question to that is how will someone whose life is depending on machine make the right choice?? Is he or she in the right state of mind?? I don't think so. I oppose the legalization of euthanasia in any circumstance and believe that doctors should always look for a solution and not just abandon research because that is what is going to happen in the long run. I am supporting the status quo because right now it is not allowed and that is why you are proposing to legalize it. People might talk of freedom to choose and so what but it is not absolute. People might also think that people should be allowed to end their suffering but we have to know that there are always possibilities to solve things. My arguments to against this are:

1-killing is wrong:

One objection to voluntary euthanasia is that it involves killing, and all killing is morally wrong. This principle may be based on religious views (e.g., the sixth commandment) or maintained on purely secular grounds. It also violates our duties to God if we are believers. It violates our duties to our families and our society too.

2-An incorrect diagnosis is possible or a new treatment might be discovered. There is always the possibility of an incorrect diagnosis or the discovery of a treatment that will permit either survival or recovery. This should be actually be the doctors' focus and never give up. They should do everything possible to save lives instead of being lazy by allowing euthanasia.

3- State of mind versus the right choice: i asked this question earlier and how do you expect someone in this critical situation to make a right choice for himself. he or she might be depending on drugs or machines and so on....

4- It goes against the doctors' job: Physicians don't want to be nor should be involved in this kind of activity. The medical profession exists to provide important professional services, and neither wants to be nor should be involved in the kind of bureaucratic activity involved in responsibly administering voluntary euthanasia.

it will also discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill.It will encourage patients to give up and significantly decrease their chances for recovery.

i hope to hear from you and will have more arguments in my next too. thanks"

Round 3
LianFex: "You said and I quote: My question to that is how will someone whose life is depending on machine make the right choice?? Is he or she in the right state of mind?? I don't think so."

I would suggest that you read my first argument for a while since I remember stating that there are three kinds of Euthanasia which are Voluntary, Non-voluntary and Involuntary euthanasia. What you, sir, have stated that a person whose life is depending on machine not making the right choice falls under the Non-voluntary euthanasia. I believe I said Voluntary euthanasia here.

Also, not all people whose life is dependent on machine don't have the capability to make the right choices. I believe that it depends on the situation the patient is. And, if there all patients dependent of a machine are NOT capable on making right choices, then there would be no such thing such as Voluntary euthanasia. Please read the description of Voluntary Euthanasia for future reference.

"Killing is wrong."

Again, I would like to correct that Euthanasia is not merely 'killing' but rather 'mercy-killing'. You might ask what's the difference or not but I would like to take the opportunity to say to you that mercy-killing is when the patient's suffering is too much to bear and that death is not the frightening option in this situation but rather a way to escape the pains and sufferings of that person.

Since this is voluntary euthanasia, I think that since the patient gave the permission already, we should not worry that the patient might oppose to this. Also, it is not just the patient's permission but euthanasia also needs the permission of the doctor.

I would like to correct you, sir, that during debate, religion, beliefs and other religious things are not entirely not allowed but rather discourage. So violations against God and religious views are not really helpful in a debate.

Incorrect treatments might be possible, however, legalizing Euthanasia doesn't mean that you are advertising it but rather giving more options for the patient and his or her family members.

"They should do everything possible to save lives instead of being lazy by allowing euthanasia."

Yes, they should do everything possible to save lives. However, it doesn't mean your being lazy by allowing euthanasia. If you are in the position of the doctor, you definitely cannot afford to be lazy in such situation since it is matter of life and death. Also, allowing Euthanasia is not being lazy.Again, it is merely giving more options for the patient.

If you are a relative to the patient, you cannot dictate what the patient must or should not do, since it is the patient who is suffering and not you. It is the patient who feels the suffering and pain, so you could not possibly feel what it feels to be in such a frail body. If the patient had asked the doctor to perform Euthanasia, can't you at least respect his or her choice? Can't you at least end his or her suffering? I believe that not even the patient's relatives have the right to object against the patient's decision.

"State of mind versus the right choice."

Again, sir, this is Voluntary Euthanasia, not Non-voluntary.

"It goes against the doctors' job."

It might goes against the doctor's job, since it is his or her job to preserve and maintain life. However, if a person dies under the hands of the doctor, doesn't that mean that he or she failed his or her job? If so, then if there are no more treatments for that patient and the patient wishes to die, then isn't it more humane to respect the patient's decision and stop that person's suffering?

"it will also discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill.It will encourage patients to give up and significantly decrease their chances for recovery."

If there are still chances for that person to live, obviously, the doctor will not permit Euthanasia since Euthanasia means that there is a very low or no chances for survival at all.

These are the points that I would like to clear. Thank you for the time and have a good day."

iamsano: "Thanks a lot for quoting me and I really appreciated that. I have carefully read your first argument and i know that you are talking only about voluntary euthanasia and that is good. My example of a person depending on mach ines does not fall under non voluntary and i am gonna show you why... lets have a clear definition of voluntary euthanasia.. as i understood it is someone under extreme pain and illness and he or she decides to die.. he or she chooses to die and not to live.. so it is all about the right to choose right? If that is the case, you might have someone who is depending on drugs or machines and the person just decides to die and not to live.. how will that decision be justified and that has been my question and hope you understand now. I believe that person is not in the right position to make such decision.. when people are ill, they might even think there is no way and they are going to die but at the end they survivre. we have seen many cases like that. I have read about voluntary euthanasia and have enough information about it. The only reason you want to legalize this is because people are ill and feel so much pain but you have never shown that there is no way to help out in the future. Voluntary euthanasia will not solve anything at the end of the day because even if you look at today's world, there are many people who dont wanna live and who prefers to die.. so if these people choose to die, are you going to accept that???

You might describe mercy killing as nice as that but the fact is somebody dies here and that is it.As i mentioned, we have seen cases in which the pain on the patient is too much but that patient survivres at the end.. if that is possible then your voluntary euthanasia will then be a big mistake.

Another problem with your case is that you didnt even mention what type of voluntary euthanasia you are referring to. If you take active voluntary euthanasia, we find that one to be more painful for instance.

Legalizing voluntary euthanasia will lead to something else in the future. for instance, thirty years ago, people supported the right to abort a babe in order to save the mum's life.. and today we have people taking that to a matter of choice.. that a woman should choose to have a babe or not. these are the same problems which are going to occur.

hey big contradiction again.. you said this "Since this is voluntary euthanasia, I think that since the patient gave the permission already, we should not worry that the patient might oppose to this. Also, it is not just the patient's permission but euthanasia also needs the permission of the doctor." so you mean the doctor must agree and how about if the patient wants to die but the doctor says no... will that be voluntary or what?? if the doctor must decide at the end, i dont think this is voluntary.

About religion, for your information it is a crime to have religious points but we can have an agreement saying this has nothing to do with religion and yeah we will all understand. If you wanna legalize this for instance in a complete religious country, of course people will talk about religion. Look Gay marriage in America, what was the debate based on?? I am not in anyway basing this on religion and forget about that because I wanna have a fair and good debate. Religion forget about it.

Of course legalizing something is making it sound right and that is just advertising. And another problem with your case when you mentioned about option for the patient and family members... do you have to include family members in voluntary euthanasia??? of course not. In most cases, of course family members will go against and what are you going to do??? How many people will be brave enough to tell to the doctor, yeah i want my father, my fiance, my wife and so on to die because there is no way to help out. Again you said not even the patient's relatives can oppose this.. so what options are you giving them at the end?

It is not just whenever a patient has pain, we should go for that. that will not solve anything and yeah the doctors are being lazy and this is a way for them to make money and the laws cant do anything against them because it is being legalize. The doctors will just be making money by killing people. Lets say i am not happy and i go to a doctor to perform voluntary and sign the form and everything and give him a dollar for instance... he can perfom that on me and nothing can be done against him or her.

Your point about a person dying under a doctor hand,is that a failure.. A godo doctor will feel the pain and tell to the family members I am sorry i could not save his life. I did everything I could. That person dies in a natural way.. but under your case the doctor himself is performing the killing and that goes against his job.

let me give an example, an elderly person in a nursing home, who can barely understand a breakfast menu, is asked to sign a form consenting to be killed. Is this voluntary or involuntary? Will they be protected by the law? How? Right now the overall prohibition on killing stands in the way. Once one signature can sign away a person's life, what can be as strong a protection as the current absolute prohibition on direct killing? Answer: nothing.

Euthanasia is a rejection of value of human life because under no one's life is being saved - life is only taken. we have pain killer to reduce the pain and suffering of the patient and at the same we have doctors continuing to make research for new cures or medicines. That is what we should be doing and not just legalize voluntary euthanasia.

This will lead to more problems.. like a patient wants his life to be ended but the doctors do not think so.. what do you think will happen or the doctors feel the patient should die because he has no way to survivre but the patient does not feel that way.. think about that..

I think it is quite a lot.. sorry for that. Thank you for your time. Good day"

Round 4
LianFex: "Excuse me, sir, but about this part:

"hey big contradiction again.. you said this "Since this is voluntary euthanasia, I think that since the patient gave the permission already, we should not worry that the patient might oppose to this. Also, it is not just the patient's permission but euthanasia also needs the permission of the doctor." so you mean the doctor must agree and how about if the patient wants to die but the doctor says no... will that be voluntary or what?? if the doctor must decide at the end, i dont think this is voluntary."

I believe that you got it all wrong. Euthanasia is possible if and only if the doctor has allowed it. If the doctor has allowed it, it means that it is authentic and is liable since the doctor is licensed to do such job. For plausible reasons and scientific explanations, the doctor will decide if Euthanasia must or must not be conducted. However, if the doctor would allow it, it doesn't mean that Euthanasia MUST be done. All the doctor will do is recommend it. The patient and relatives must be consulted first.

And oh, having religious points is not a crime. It's just discourage.

"And yeah the doctors are being lazy and this is a way for them to make money and the laws cant do anything against them because it is being legalize."

I'm sorry to say that you can't generalized all people in one single view. If a doctor will read this, he or she will obviously be upset. Kindly don't put them in a single category for we don't know their reasons....and I believe that they have their own personal opinions in this matter, whether good or not.

"But under your case the doctor himself is performing the killing and that goes against his job."

A doctor's hand might be tainted but s/he is merely the one who did it, not the one who choose to do this. I would like to remind you that the doctor ONLY recommends, not chooses. The choosing responsibility goes to the patient and possibly the relatives.

And with your example, that already falls under Non-voluntary euthanasia. The doctor of the patient would obviously know if the patient is capable to choose the right decision of not. Again, if there are no patients that are dependent on machines that can make right decisions, then voluntary euthanasia does not exist. Then there are only two kinds of euthanasia.

I would like to quote Tamora Langley of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society's view.

Everyone wants a good death, which is why opinion polls show 85% of the population support us.

Many people have seen friends and relatives die long drawn-out deaths and thought: "In their shoes I would like to have a choice about how and when I die."

The doctor/patient relationship has changed a lot over the last 50 years, from 'doctor knows best' towards a more equal relationship with doctors giving patients the information they need in order to make their own informed decisions.

But when it comes to end-of-life decision making the relationship is far from equal: patients are still disempowered.

A 'good death' is one which complements rather than clashes with our vision of ourselves.

Because we are all individuals, we must be allowed to make choices about what for each of us, is a good death.

This requires a two-way dialogue with our doctors, where our wishes about our own lives are respected.

Doctors must realise that where they are unable to cure, they must offer acceptable alternatives - alternatives which are acceptable to us.

The desire to have control over our lives is a fundamental part of our humanity.

In 2001 VES (Voluntary Euthanasia Society) was nominated for the Liberty/Justice Human Rights Award, for our work in furthering the human rights of the terminally ill.

The problem with the current law is that it does not work, and vulnerable people are not protected.

Everyone knows that doctors help people to die even though it is against the law.

For example, in a recent survey 4% of UK doctors admitted to assisting in a patient's suicide, although the real figure is likely to be much higher.

Additionally doctors hasten patients' deaths and hide behind the doctrine of double effect.

Each year 'mercy killing' cases are brought to court but juries refuse to convict, or when they do judges only give suspended sentences.

Without legal safeguards there is little protection here for vulnerable people.

The last country which conducted a full inquiry into end-of-life decisions was Belgium. Belgium discovered it had five times the amount of non-voluntary euthanasia as the Netherlands, where assisted dying is strictly regulated.

The Belgian Senate has now voted to legalize voluntary euthanasia because it recognizes regulation is the best way to protect the vulnerable.

In legal terms, the UK lags far behind the rest of Europe.

While most European countries distinguish 'murder' from cases where the person asks for assistance to die, the concept of 'homicide with consent' does not exist in English law.

In most of Europe, assisting in the suicide of a terminally ill adult is not a crime.

Terminally ill adults have the right to be treated as equals, and we should all be allowed to choose a good death."

No, I don't mind long replies. (smile) It's better than short ones, anyway. I guess that's it for now. Thank you and good day."

iamsano: "Thanks a lot for replying and i appreciate... oh you think i got all wrong but i didnt and you know why?? because you have misunderstood the whole thing. first you said that this is gonna give option to the patient and his family and i asked if the family then has to decide it is not voluntary because most family will say no. secondly you said the doctor must agree but do you remember when you told me that nobody is feeling the pain but only the patient. if that is the case, the doctor has no right to say no. Let say i am ill and i have too much pain and just decide to go for merci killing, i dont think the doctor should say no if it is voluntary.. think about it. I also asked you about if the doctor feels that the patient should just die but the patient does not wanna die, what do you do in that case???

another problem with you is that you keep changing your stand.. because the website you gave me, voluntary euthanasia is defined the person's direct consent. It has nothing to do with the doctor.. the only thing for the doctor to do is the killing act. you can check wikipedia for more information on that because i have. you also mentioned that the patient and his relatives must have the options and that is also not under voluntary my dear. I have also told that most people will prefer to see their relatives dying naturally to voluntary euthanasia.

I am not trying to generalize anything, I am doing things based on facts. Maybe a doctor will be upset by reading because i am telling the truth and that is how it will be. Look at plastic surgery for instance, are doctors making money from it or not? Even though it has some negative effects sometimes. Same goes to abortion, are they making money from it or not.. this is the real world and we people will do what we feel are in our best interest and no matter you are a doctor or somebody else.. this is what is going to happen at the end of day if we legalize it.

I like your point on this.. you said this "A doctor's hand might be tainted but s/he is merely the one who did it, not the one who choose to do this" and you telling me that he or she only recommend and not choose.. that is funny. If i am in a room with you and i tell hey I wanna kill myself and you support me on that saying yeah you should do it... you can be guilty for my death do you know that?? same thing here and i dont see any difference.

Thanks again for your quoting from Tamora Langley of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society's. "Everyone wants a good death, which is why opinion polls show 85% of the population support us".. if that is the case, why it is still not legal? If you look at the whole world, only in the netherland this has been made legal and california state has been discussing it.. so i dont know where that 85% come from... maybe you can let me know... another thing you should know is that a government does not just legalize something people want. A government should protect people and that is why drugs are illegal for instance.. we have millions of people who wanna have drugs but the government says no in order to protect them.

The voluntary euthanasia society was formed in 1935 and yeah still not legal but people and government do not support it. We are individuals and we are not perfect i guess. We should make choices and that is for sure but those rights are limited. Committing this voluntary euthanasia affects you, your family, your society, your country and so on. I dont see any positive thing about it.. It is just that people lose you and yeah they still think about how they lose you.

Thank you for making this point too and i remember you telling me if a doctor reads about what i said, he or she might feel bad. you said this "For example, in a recent survey 4% of UK doctors admitted to assisting in a patient's suicide, although the real figure is likely to be much higher" if that is happening while it is illegal, what do you think doctors will then do when it is legal. They will be killing people in the name of voluntary euthanasia and will be making profit out of that. so how will you protect those people when it is made legal?? maybe you can explain that to me because i dont get what you mean.

If you also comparing belgium to the netherland for having more non voluntary euthanasia cases, that might show that things will not work because voluntary euthanasia is legalized in the Netherland.. check that from google.com and you might see. so i dont understand that too and all your points are kind of supporting me.

before leaving, you said this too " In most of Europe, assisting in the suicide of a terminally ill adult is not a crime" and if that is true, could you please tell me why it has not been legalized then?

Thanks a lot and i am gonna stop here.. have a nice weekend and yeah i cant wait for your final statement... good luck"

Round 5
LianFex: LianFex forfeited this round.

iamsano: "hi it is so sad to see the last round forfeited.. guess it is ok. maybe you are busy. so i have clearly told you why voluntary euthanasia is in nobody's interest at the end of the day. it is good for the patient in the first place and there is no way for a family to support this idea.

good luck"