It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Stumpy V Skadi-the-evil-Elf. Euthenasia.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 24 2003 @ 01:21 PM
Each debator will have one opening statement each.This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each.There will be one closing statement each and no rebutal.

The Deate topic is:Euthenasia should be made legal.

Stumpy will argue for this proposition and he will open the Debate.
Skadi-the-evil-Elf will respond and argue against this proposition.

As a guide responses should be made within 18 hours.However if the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this.

Other rules can be found on a Topic on this forum.

I wish you both goodluck.

posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 12:11 AM
Skadi,Can you please open this debate.If Stumpy does not reply he will be in default.


posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 07:27 AM
Very well, I shall open.

Euthanasia, Greek for "good death", is a misnomer. How can death be good? Death is the ending of life. Unless you count the deaths of evil dictators and killers, death is a very unpleasant thing for those left behind.

The Hippocratic oath, in its very first and earliest draft, clearly states that:

"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. "

"I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work."

In its later drafts, the more modern version, made in 1964, states:

"Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God."

This oath, taken by all physicians, both past and present, clearly points out that the doctor shall do no harm, and shall not play "god".

When it comes to matters of life and death, who is the doctor to say when life is over? What right does he have to tell a patient that thier time is up? Does he know the future? Does he have the final say?

And for that matter, what about the patient? If we allow suicide of the "terminally ill", what next will follow? Suicide for the terminally stupid? Terminally unhappy? Terminally "deviant"?

It is not for humanity to decide when the reaper comes, for mother nature herself is the giver and taker of life, when we justify the killing of people who are simply old and sick, or simply unproductive, it opens up the floodgates to eugenic mass murder.

posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 02:56 PM
Sorry for my late arrival. Strangely enough, I was out of town ot my aunts funeral (who sufferend from a terminal lung ailment for many years) and returned home to find a most interesting topic for debate.

Primarily, death can be a very good thing, if it is what a sane, rational person wishes for above all else. The assumption that it is only bad is a very narrow assumption. Many cultures welcome death as the next stage in life, and many dying people simply wish for an end to the pain. The most obvious instance is when confronted by terminal illness. Family members are merely being selfish by keeping around a loved one who wants more than anything to have their life of pain and suffereng ended. It is not in the best interest of the individual wishing to be euthanized to stick around simply becasue no one has the compassion to help them.

A doctor who assists in Euthanasia is not breaking the hippocratic oath, becasue they are not causing harm. In fact, to prolong a patient's life against thier wished would be casuing much more harm than assisting in thier death. Additionally, they are not 'playing God,' because they are simply assisting with the wish of the soon to be deceased. Playing God would be if they decided to kill old people on their own, but euthansia is helping people who are suffering end that suffering.
It is often frowned upon, because many do not think of death as something they themselves would welcome. However, most of the people who beleive this have not lingered in a state of near death for 9 years hoping to die but never being allowed to. These people, would understand the blessing that legalizing euthanasia could bring to our aging population.

In conclusion, not only should it be legal, but Doctors have the Duty through the Hippocratic oath to perform euthanasia, legal or not. For to not assist with the ending of suffering for a patient that wishes so, would casue them harm, and keeping a patient alive against their wishes would then be the definition of 'playing God'. Have mercy.

posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 05:24 PM
The age old arguement about thier suffering. With the myriad of painkillers on the market today, suffering is hardly an issue anymore. We dont live in the dark ages, where the only pain killer was a toxic plant or point of the sword, we live in a time of miracles of modern science.

Who is to say what is terminal and what is painful? If we start allowing people to kill themselves because they are terminally ill, whats the next step? people with terminal mental disorders? persons with chronic depression allowed to commit suicide? persons who suffer from sorrow are in pain too, and death would end it for them. Shall we make suicide legal for anyone in pain?

The doctor does play god when he gives a person the means to end thier life, he is doing harm, because death is the ultimate harm you can do to your body. Death doesnt need to be sped along, death is certain if you are terminally ill. Doctors are not denying a person freedom from pain, because death is certain for anyone who lives. The question is: what right does a doctor have to make that descision and aid that patient in ending thier lives? The doctor is abbetting and aiding self murder. he is an accomplice to murder, because he is giving the tools to a person to end thier existance.

Just because a person is terminally ill, does not mean life is over. Even from a death bed, a person still can sya and do much. there are so many powerful painkillers to help ease thier siffering, and diseases long ago that were once believed incurable are finding cures everyday. Being terminally ill isnt what it used to be.

But for your question, stumpy, can a person who is dying be considered sane and rational? When one is faced with imminent death, people tend to get pretty damn irrational. the first instinct will be that of the animal: to end it, to get away from what is causing pain. Yet with time, acceptance occurs, and its best to let nature run her course, because you never know what the future may bring. Nature will grant release in her own good time. When we legally sanction ending ones life prematurely, we open the floodgates to new "recipients" of this so called "good death".

What about when someone is comatose and cant make that descion? Will doctors then start making it for them?

Life and death, and the flow of time, doctors should stay the hell out. Whether the patient is sick and will kill themselves anyway, the doctors duty is to sustain life to the bitter end, not end it simply because his patient wants to.

He plays god, because he gives death to the patient, instead of letting it take its course.

posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 11:02 PM
The crux of the argument on Euthanasia comes down to personal choice. In the United States, we are supposedly granted "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Sometimes these 3 basic freedoms are at odds to each other. I interpret the most important ones to be Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. If your personal liberty, and your individual pursuit of happiness means living...then by all means, continue living. But if you decide you want to have your life ended, it is your individual personal right to do so. This decision has no bearing on others (except selfish family members). Euthanasia should be legalized because those that are the most in need of being able to make this difficult, very personal decision, are not capable of doing it without assistance. Many others Skadi listed in his argument are completely capable of taking their own lives whether its legal or not. Therefore, the only people harmed by laws against euthanasia are those most in need of assistance. (please leave out coma patients..if they have no living will, euthanasia, even if legalized would not apply)
As far as the painkiller argument goes, it actually supports the decision to legalize euthanasia. Many terminally ill woudl far rather end their lives than live in a mental haze induced by painkillers simply to avoid living in physical pain. The mental and emotional pain these drugs caused when used on a day to day basis simply to exist is often more painful than the physical pain they would otherwise endure.
Furthermore, a recent study published on the effects of euthanasia in the netherlands, which has been legal for over 25 years indicates very few downsides. Most patients electing euthanasia elect to pass on only a matter of weeks before they woudl have died anyway, eliminating the most painful part of their demise. Additionally, few utilize it, indicating that legalizing euthanasia will not cause a mass suicide, rather, those that need it most are the ones who utilize it; this would also be the case int he US, only those in desperate need woudl utilize it, and those are the ones who need it legalized the most, becasue they must have assitance.
It boils down to personal choice, we as healthy individuals have the option (illegal or not) of ending our lives if we so wish; euthanasia should be legalized to assist those that cannot help themselves.

posted on Aug, 27 2003 @ 11:53 AM
The very first part of the American dream: life. Without life, there is no liberty or pursuing anything. Life. Does this mean the freedom to end life?

The painkiller point is hardly a moot one, since pain killers allow the person to be free of pain, and certain ones, mainly the politicans cocktail, allow the dying person to remain alert and awake, to be able to spend the last moments of life awake with family members. Painkiller do just that: kill the pain so they dying will not have to suffer pain, and allow nature to take her course. They do not have to be vegetables. Theres many medications that allow for awareness along with freedom from pain. Dying doesnt have to be painful. It can be very peaceful.

There is Hospice. Hospice allows a person who doesnt want to be hooked up to machines to die a peaceful, natural death. It is far preferable to suicide, as it aknowledges the presciousness of life, and the need to die with dignity. It supplies pain medice, and nurses to care for the dying, to clean them up and care for them. A much kinder soultion than to simply snuffing out the light, no matter how dim that light may be getting.

When we legally sanction Euthaniasia, we are telling the world that life no longer is prescious, that when a person is no longer productive, they should be allowed to kill themselves, and a doctor should be allowed to break his oath and assist. We send out a signal that life is only good as long as your young and healthy, when you age and become ill, than suicide is ok, because youre old and useless, and no one will miss you. Only the young and vibrant have good life. Sickness and age are to be feared, and thus, are suffering. We become no better than the Romans and Greeks, who also practiced "good death".

If a person is going to kill themselves, they will, but to legally sanction doctor assistance is purely disturbing. People in society continue to murder and rape, they will contine to steal and lie, so should we make it easy for them to get thier hands on weapons to kill? They will do it anyway. Suicide, you say, only kills the person killing themselves. But they are still taking a life. Doctors become accomplices to murder when they provide the means for a person to end thier life.

Theres also the prospect of doctors becoming corrupted. If they take one life because a person asks them to, where will they draw the line? What about people incapable of maiing that descision? What if a person is in a coma, and cannot make this descision? What if, they make a living will to pull the plug, but change thier minds before they change thier will, and become comatose before they can do anything? What about doctors, who, now legalized to commit murder, suggest suicide to a terminally ill patient, robbing them of hope, and in thier desperate time of need, suggesting that they end it all and stop thier suffering when they are not quite ready to give up yet?

It is not selfish of family members to want to keep thier loved ones around. It is selfish of the dying to do so. The dying person will get thier chance to be released from life soon enough. It is the living who will have to suffer on. Let the dying stay and let nature take her own course. Let those last weeks of life be ones hwere the family, who will be left behind, have that time to spend with the dying and tell them all the things they never got to say, to share, to suck up every last minute. Doctors, nor the dying should deprive the living, of thier only hope for redemption and closure.

posted on Aug, 27 2003 @ 02:44 PM
You make a good point about Hospice. Hospice is a very effective, and very drawn out form of Euthanasia. It allows people who wish to die to do so...its only drawback is that it forces patients to wait for death to come to them. Even if they have these super-wonderful-alert-and-functional painkillers, they must still wait and meet death on Death's terms. They are still being denied the opportunity to meet death on their own terms.

As for your argument to keep it illegal simply because some rogue doctors might run around killing people...well its plain absurd. Do we outlaw cars because some idiots like to get drunk and get behind the wheel?

To addres your living will point...right now, under existing law a person with a living will that changes their mind but do not change the will or tell the right people, and are comatose will have the plug pulled. That is not about euthanasia, that is about living wills. They are legal.

This argument boils down to two very simple points. Skadi's complete argument is that 'Death is Bad'. While most of us do desire to continue living for the time being, we may not always wish to. To assume that 'Death is Bad' universally for all people is to take away their personal freedom, and their rights. Basically, Skadi argues that death is bad, and anything that facilitates death is bad. I contend it is not his decision to make.

Which brings me to my fundemental point. Death is a choice that is up to individuals. It is not for their family to make, it is not for me to make, and it is not for Skadi to make. It is a personal freedom and choice. The people that need to be able to make this choice, also often need assistance. Far be it for us, as a seemingly compassionate country, to prosecute the noble physicians that help their most tragic patients carry out their last wish.
Death is a choice and a matter of personal freedom. It must be legalized.

posted on Aug, 28 2003 @ 01:01 PM
Its not a matter of personal choice, its a matter of doctors taking on the mantle of god and assisting in self inflicted murder. Giving someone the means to end thier lives, instead of doing every last thing to try and cure the disease, even if the doctor knows its hopeless, is against his oath. If the person plans on killing themselves, they will probably do it. But making it legal for the doctor to administer death makes him an accomplice to muder, and in some cases, the muderer himself.

The doctors job is to save life and extend it. Even when all seems hopeless, the doctor is still required to keep on trying, in the hope, for a miracle. He is required to the bitter end to keep trying to save that person from death. When he crosses that line, and says, well, i give up, heres your cyanide, happy perishing, he is no longer healer but a murderer. What is the person who gives the depressed man a gun so he may kill himself because hes miserable? hes an accomplice to murder. What is the man who pulls the trigger himself because the vsuicidal one cannot bring himself to pull the trigger? he is a murderer. The same goes for the doctors. When it comes to life and death, the doctor should never inflict death. no matter what the person wants. If shrinks decided that people who were depressed should be allowed to kill themselves, what would he be? His job is to heal, not to harm.

legalizing physician assisted suicide is legalizing murder, plain and simple. The dying patient may decide that his life needs to end. The dying patient may end his life. But the doctor should do anything he can to extend and heal that life, even when all hope is lost. Making it legal for the doctor to administer death and an end to life is legalizing killing, pure and simple, of another human being.

posted on Aug, 28 2003 @ 02:18 PM
This debate has been dragged out far too long. We are both simply repeating ourselves with each rebuttal.

Your entire argument hinges on 'Death is Bad'. How can you be so arrogant as to think you have the right to decide for everyone that death is, in fact, bad? The Hippocratic oath is to Cause No Harm. Harm can be caused by forcing a person to live who does not want to be alive anymore. Forcing them to encounter the emotional pain of a long good bye with their family, forcing them to live with the hoplessness that they know their life has become. Not assisting with their passing is what is causing them the most harm. In order for the doctor to uphold his oath, Euthanasia is sometimes the ONLY option; any other option would effectively cause their patient more harm.

As for personl choice, how can death not be a personal choice? It is obviously a choice you wish to never make, but for many, especially those living (barely) with terminal illness, in constant pain (even if not physical, certainly mental, and emotional pain caused by the impending end, and the helplessness associated with the waiting), it is the best choice. The decision to die is the most personal of all choices, and should be defended and legalized.

Additionally, how can you claim that a doctor assisting a patient is 'playing God?' God would simply strike dead whomever He wishes. Someone assiting a patient would be simply facilitating the patient to be the master of their own of the fundemental premises of the United States.

This debate is really over...Death is a matter of personal choice, and those that so nobly assist with this difficult decision should not be punished....legalizing euthanasia is neccessary to help citizens become masters of their own destiny.

posted on Aug, 28 2003 @ 04:48 PM
Closing statements now.Remember there are no rebutals in this round.Thankyou.

posted on Aug, 28 2003 @ 05:20 PM
The Hippocratic Oath. All doctors must take it, miust be sworn by it. It clearly states in its older version, Administer no Poison, no matter how much the patient begs for it. In its newer version, it states the doctor shall not play god. Pretty simple.

Legalizing doctor assisted suicde is legalizing murder. It legalizes people to murder other people at thier request. If you kill someone on the streets because they ask you to do it, is this muder? This is what Euthaniasia ultimately is: making it legal to kill people with thier permission. It will open the floodgates to an untold number of legal complications, create new cottage industries for suicide, and soon, life itself will no longer be valued, and death will become just another thing you do whenever to whoever.

Ever watch Futurama? remeber the Automatic Suicide booths? Is this what we want, death on demand for anyone who asks it? Will people who discover they have a non fatal but permament disease, like glaucoma, be allowed to end thier lives because they no longer are whole? Will we then take the mantle of god and decide who is unhealthy, who is the most miserable, and give them euthanasia, because they simply arent well enough to decide?

Legaly sanctioning doctors and other representives to adimister death to people is devaluing life, period.

posted on Aug, 28 2003 @ 08:38 PM
Legalized Euthanasia has been a success in other counties such as Norway for years. It did not create a cottage industry for death. It also might still leave some doctors with a moral or ethical decision to make, but it does not cause them to fear legal ramifications.

Assisted Suicide might be against your morals, or Skadi's, or even mine, but it is not for us to legislate morality.

The right to die is something that all of us have currently, legal or not. The people who do not have the right to die are the ones that need it most. Those so incapacitated that they require assistance to end their life.

We must make it legal for doctors to assist those in dire need with the ability to put an end to their tragic, lingering existence, if that is what they wish.

Death is a choice, a freedom, and a right, and euthanasia must be legalized to preserve personal Liberty.

posted on Aug, 29 2003 @ 03:21 AM
Thankyou both.

This going to give the judges something to mull over for sure.Well done.Kudos to you both.

top topics


log in