ok so ive been selected fr a debate wth the topic 'EUTHANASIA SHUD BE LEGALIZED' and my team is FOR it

Question

i dnt agree wth it,but i really need help on tips why it SHUD BE LEGALIZED..so any one??:s

Answer 1

We euthanize animals at the end of their lives when they are suffering and will not recover. Should we not afford people the same dignity?

I have watched relatives suffer horribly through their last few weeks. WHY? Not only were they uncomfortable and in pain, the entire family had to sit by their bedside and watch them suffer. Our last memories of these folks are of them in constant misery. I can take my two year old cat, who is perfectly healthy, to the vet and have it euthanized for no reason (not that I EVER would, mind you).

If we have free will, and live in a free society, why can we not choose the time and method of our deaths? I am not talking about suicide or for people who are depressed. I am talking about chronically and terminally ill people.

The only reason I know of against euthanasia is a religious one -- thou shalt not kill. We supposedly live in a country where religion is supposed to be separate from the state, so that isn't a valid reason. Also, some people argue that doctors take an oath to do no harm. Fine. Let nurses, or trained paraprofessionals make that final injection. Let hospice do it.

Look at the Terry Schaivo case as an example. It was a travesty. Bungled at every turn. I am ashamed to live in a country where that was allowed to happen. Her poor children.

Check out more socially liberal countries like Denmark and Amsterdam. Euthanasia is legal, and they aren't offing their elderly at every chance -- the rates are actually quite low. It seems that people mostly want the option. Not a lot of people actually choose it.

Answer 2

This is a hard topic - I think that as we look at how a society has progressed, that progression has been based upon how we view the rights of the most vulnerable people in our society. Women, children, Black people, First Nations people, all used to be viewed as property - not even as human. Society has progressed in our treatment and perception of people with disabilities, of animal rights, etc. We have tried to speak for the rights of people and creatures which had no power. We should examine the view "does euthanasia empower people or strip people of their right to life?" Who would make decisions about euthanasia? Would you have to request it yourself or could the state make the decision? If you requested it yourself, could the state decide you were not competent to make that decision? Should a parent or spouse be able to decide for you? Try thinking about some of these issues as you prepare your debate.

Answer 3

different than people who're against it for in common terms non secular motives, i think of there is extra help for euthanasia than you will possibly be able to think of. lower back until eventually now the government began getting in touch, it wasn't in any respect unusual for docs to help their terminal sufferers bypass on while no longer the rest might desire to be carried out for them. however the phobia of suits and worse has forced them to lower back off. yet another excuse some everybody is against euthanasia is out of worry that it diminishes the fee of human existence. whilst I disagree with that opinion, I do comprehend it. there is plenty skill for abuse that it would require some very strict rules to ensure that me to be mushy with it in right this moment's international. otherwise in our modern bureaucratic wellness care gadget, it would desire to be too hassle-free to no longer act contained in the affected person's maximum suitable interest, yet somewhat contained in the self-serving interest of a grasping relative, a grasping wellness care provider provider, an uncaring wellness facility bureaucrat, or an unprofessional physician. i might choose there be a minimum of 5 factors to euthanasia rules: a million. A signed and witnessed living will. 2. If indicated, a psychological wellness assessment to rule out severe melancholy. 3. The requirement that each physique end-of-existence thoughts have been defined to the affected person, i.e., soreness administration, hospice, etc. 4. The affected person must be declared as being interior some months of dying on the main (say 6, yet it rather is open for communicate). 5. That a "group" of wellness care experts alongside side the family make the main suitable determination.

Answer 4

I don't even care to get into it but ..... alot of people think that they are in great mental pain , when they are in perfect health. So personally... I'd say it should be allowed , but only under certain strict guidelines. If a person is truly mangled in a car wreck , or etc... their quality of living should be taken into consideration.

Answer 5

Take a moral stand--pro or con. It is a good subject to debate. Should a person's last moments on earth, after a life well-lived, be painful. We should be merciful!

Answer 6

Would you rather see a mangled dog that was hit by a car suffer excruciating pain or be put to sleep?

Answer 7

can thinkof a lot of reasons why it could be abused and so i would be against it---yet if I wanna go then I wanna go. Better to go pleasantly nice and warm than over a cliff.

Answer 8

Think about the sickest sick that you have ever been in your life. Would you want to live years like that? You can take it from there.

Answer 9

Firstly spell 'should' correctly, secondly....if we are at liberty to make major personal decisions in our lives....when to go to the doctors, or not to go...etc....to smoke or not to smoke....etc....why arent we given ultimate control over our very lives?