1. Euthanasia is the deliberate advancement of a person's death for the benefit of that person. In most
cases euthanasia is carried out because the person asks to die, but there are cases where a person can't
make such a request.
A person who undergoes euthanasia is usually terminally ill.Euthanasia can be carried out either by doing
something, such as administering a lethal injection, or by not doing something necessary to keep the
person alive (for example failing to keep their feeding tube going).
In my opinion it's not moral to kill a person even if they are terminally ill because this person need a
chance to live along and see his life, but there are people that disagree.
I have a debate in my college about this topic and I'd like to hear if you agree or disagree with euthanasia.
Thank you:)
All the Yes points
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
It frees up hospital beds and resources
It ends the patient life because he/she is already terminally ill
It relieves suffering
Right to choose
Relatives spared the agony of watching their loved ones deteriorate beyond recognition
It reduces the spread of diseases
It removes the economic burden from relatives
Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?
Yes
It frees up hospital beds and resources
Terminally ill patients, or those in a permanent vegetative state, can take up valuable hospital beds for
those who do want to get better. If they do not want to live, then they should not be allowed to take the
beds and care of those that do.
Long term palliative care for the terminally ill is a huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical
resources. Why waste these precious resources on someone who has expressed a desire to die, when
they could be improving the life of someone who wants to live?
In addition, these resources could be re-allocated to further the research of the specific disease the
patient is suffering in order to allow future generations to either not have the disease or increase the
quality level of care for future patients of this disease by alleviating the symptoms of the disease at the
very least.
In addition, if the patient is an organ donator and the organs are healthy, it may save up several lives
which are ultimately invaluable.

2. working in the care system with people with dementia i have to say in many cases its cruel to keep them
alive, we are kinder to our pets when so ill. This is an awful disease which takes any quality of life away,
One lady i know has been bed ridden for 5 years unable to communicate , move her limbs or anything if
the nazis had done this to people it would be a war crime. This is not about god or any other belief its
about common sense. Everyone should have the right to say while they are still of good mind if they get
this or another illness at a certain stage they have their life ended,
What i see every day is slow often distressing painful deaths which is no more than cruelty,we really have
to change the way we think
NO
Just because beds in hospitals are needed by others is no reason to allow a person to die! Some can be
cared for at home, or in special hospices. If we stopped caring for the terminally ill at all where would we
draw the line? Is treating the elderly also a waste of resources because they are nearing the end of their
lives anyway? I think that to describe palliative care as a "huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical
resources" is rather harsh! I‟m not sure that families of the terminally ill would agree with you there.
It ends the patient life because he/she is already terminally ill
Yes
Terminally ill means terminally ill. This means that the patient, unless an absolute miracle happens, will
die eventually regardless of how many interventions it takes to prolong his or her life expectancy. This
time and money could be used to help others or cure others who aren't mortally wounded or diseased.
The rebuttal presupposes that an individual needs to wait for a hypothetical existence of a treatment
being developed on an assumption that decisions that are finalized is not a justification for terminating a
patient's life at one's explicit consent. If decisions made in your life were to be stagnated each and every
time in order for an opportunity to arise everytime, the basis for this principle would not be a good one at
the very least.
Wait one day, wait one week, wait one month, we'll stay back and see. An indecisiveness for something
which might not exist within one's lifetime would make a claim for which things ought to be reversible or
decisions ought to be remade in order for things to be "controlled" in a manner. In this respect, of the
practice of "Euthanasia", death is the ultimate goal of avoidance and thus a finalized decision of upholding
pain until the very last minute of life in respect to waiting for a treatment outweighs the ultimate outcome
of death. The opposition makes a claim that reversibility of a decision that may be regretted later due to it
being finalized is better on these grounds, however, if life was controllable in all aspects and under all
possible circumstances, we were able to scroll back on our decisions, what meaningful would arise out of
the circumstances for which our decisions are made on? What would the product of our actions, time and
energy be? Aren't these decisions philosophically what identify us as who we are even to the extent of a
life or death situation? Also, even if a cure was possible, what complications will arise thereafter? What if
the patient is of old age and will die anyways but has already lived a long healthy life? It cannot be
justified to deem that waiting for something which might or might not exist in a future to occur outweighs
the prospect of pain. Wait for a miracle "cure", wait for a revolutionary science "discovery" to solve our
problems, wait for a technological "innovation"...this line of thought may be wise in some situations but not
necessarily in the case of Euthanasia.

3. NO
The patient may be terminally ill but this statement aside from repeating other points discounts the
possibility of new treatments being developed in time to cure the illness he or she is facing.
It relieves suffering
Yes
If a terminal patient faces a long, slow, painful death, surely it is much kinder to spare them this kind of
suffering and allow them to end their life comfortably. Pain medications used to allieviate symptoms often
have unpleasant side effects or may leave the patient in a state of sedation. It is not as if they are really
„living‟ during this time; they are merely waiting to die. They should have the right to avoid this kind of
torturous existence and be allowed to die in a humane way.
Appeal to "naturalism" is a very bad argument. We take medical pills, we put up an umbrella to avoid
having rain fall on us, we try to not live in a tribal manner like our ancestors where we deem ourselves to
live a civilized life where we do not simply kill eachother and rape eachother because its the "natural
conclusion" of our actions. Suffering may a part of the human condition and it can be argued to be useful
in preventing us from self-destructive habits, physical dismemberment or physiological damage due to
negligence of the body, etc. However, does that justify that we ought to endure a pointless pain just
because it must be part of life's experience? Just because life is unfair doesn't mean we should start
treating others unfairly, or just because sex is a part of the human experience, that we have an obligation
to perform intercourse. Also, if an argument of biological existence is made, then why is it limited to
humans in the treatment of this manner? What is the difference between existence and living? Do people
want to live in a state where they cannot progress, breathe, talk, hear, see, suffer from paralysis and
slowly die? People do want to live, and merely existing is not enough. If we just had to exist, then why do
we need a spectrum of other human experiences? Why do not we just limit ourselves to sleep, eat,
reproduce, etc? There is more to life than existing in such a state.
NO
There is a straight answer for this: Suffering is part of the human condition and part of life's experience.
Also medication can be improved to help a person's quality of life and make their deaths as humane as
possible. Futhermore even if a person is in a state of sedation they are still biologically existing and still
have what some would say an obligation to live their life until its natural conclusion.
i think that it is our fate and nothing happens in theis world just like that for no reason. Everything in this
world happen for a reason that could be beneficial for that person but he or she may not realise it.
You may say know that how if a person is suffering severly from ilness would that be a good thing for him
or her ?? Bu toyu never know. I mean that i take as murder. We all say and agree that murder is
something really bad and is not allowed so how come killing a person is the right thing?? Even if that
person is suffering.What would you call it? Wouldn't you call it killing.
I will say that life is something complicated. It is not something that we could ever realise and understand
100 percent but each and every single person lives for a reason and when someone would die i definitly
don't have the choice to choose whether to kill that person or not even if he or she is suffering. Maybe yes
a person would absolutely like to avoid suffering and have a relaxed life but sometimes and mostly

4. always things don't always turn out to be exactly like what we want. So I think it depends on how a person
believes in God if he or she have faith in God then they will know that this is the will of God and will take
it. We can't say that there is a life with no suffering each and every person in his life have suffered in their
life but it is how you deal with them that matters and not to run away because you're afraid to face them
or afraid that you would suffer because they alwaus say that you will always face your biggest fears in
your life. So i would never kill a person and take the blame for it my entire life as i might someday sit
alone and ask myself a question, did i kill my mother??
Right to choose
Yes
Our legal system accepts that people have a legal right to choose when to die, as demonstrated by the
fact that suicide is legal. This right is denied to those who are incapable of taking their own lives unaided.
Legalising euthanasia would redress this balance.
Our legal system also recognises that assisting a suicide attempt is a crime.
Human beings are independent biological entities, and as an adult, have the right to take and carry out
decisions about themselves. A human being decides who they spend their life with, their career path,
where they live, whether to bear children. So what is the harm in allowing a terminally ill patient to decide
for themselves whether they die in a hospital or in their own home? Surely a terminally ill sufferer is better
qualified to decide for themselves whether they are better off dead or alive? Their disease makes them so
crippled they cannot commit suicide alone. A quote from The Independent in March 2002 stated that “So
long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further
questions” [[ The Independent" Editiorial Make euthansia available for those who can choose
it http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/make-euthanasia-available-for-those-who-canchoose-it-653034.html Accessed 03.09]]. Human beings should be as free as possible and unnecessary
restraints on human rights are strongly discouraged.
The opposition makes an arguement of inclination. However, it ought to be rejected that people, intuitions
or legal entities should advocate the death of an individual. The life an individual rests in the
considerations of the consequences of an individual's actions. If we deny them this right, we make a claim
that we own their life. We own the product of their time, energy and utility. This is something we must
never fall into. Although it may be said from a financial sense, things aren't good; we do attempt to put
human life in an invaluable scale. It may be said that human beings are precious for various reasons, but
the value of an individual's life can never be determined by the state, another individual or entity. Even
though life insurances are in place, the individual's self-assigned worth is what gives the individual its own
worth for its very own existence.
No
The right to choose is not something which our legal system has "accepted" we all have. This is far from
the truth. Suicide was decriminalised in the UK solely for the reason that it is not a punishable offence – it
is of course impossible to punish a dead person. This is by no means a reflection of the general opinion of
society.
Furthermore the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Diane Pretty that a person does
not has a recognised right to die as stated in this quote: "No right to die, whether at the hands of a third

5. person or with the assistance of a public authority could be derived." [[ BBC Online News "British woman
denied right to die"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1957396.stm
Unfortunately giving any sort of „right to chose‟ also denies a right to choose for others. If Euthanasia is
allowed then people who are terminally ill, critically injured or simply old may well feel compelled to
choose and option they don‟t really want to take. If Euthanasia is allowed in some cases these people
whose treatment may be costing relatives or the state a lot of money may well feel that they are not worth
the cost of keeping them alive. This is not something we would want anyone to feel as in essence it takes
away their freedom of choice on the matter.
Relatives spared the agony of watching their loved ones deteriorate
beyond recognition
Yes
A person dying from cancer feels weak; exhausted and loses the will to fight. Muscles waste away,
appearance changes and the patient starts to look older. A cancer patient becomes confused, no longer
recognising family and friends. Motor neurone disease causes the sufferer to lose mobility in the limbs,
having difficulty with speech, swallowing and breathing. Those suffering with Huntington‟s Disease
develop symptoms of dementia, such as loss of rational thought and poor concentration. Involuntary
movements, difficulties with speaking and swallowing, weight loss, depression and anxiety may also
occur. Families of individuals suffering with such diseases see their bright, happy relative reduced to a
shadow of their former self. Their loved one suffers a slow and painful death. Surely, it is kinder to put a
mother, father, brother or sister out of their misery and allow them to die a peaceful death, as is their last
wish.
No
A person dying from cancer feels weak; exhausted and loses the will to fight. Muscles waste away,
appearance changes and the patient starts to look older. A cancer patient becomes confused, no longer
recognising family and friends. Motor neurone disease causes the sufferer to lose mobility in the limbs,
having difficulty with speech, swallowing and breathing. Those suffering with Huntington‟s Disease
develop symptoms of dementia, such as loss of rational thought and poor concentration. Involuntary
movements, difficulties with speaking and swallowing, weight loss, depression and anxiety may also
occur. Families of individuals suffering with such diseases see their bright, happy relative reduced to a
shadow of their former self. Their loved one suffers a slow and painful death. Surely, it is kinder to put a
mother, father, brother or sister out of their misery and allow them to die a peaceful death, as is their last
wish.
It reduces the spread of diseases
Yes
When a person is sick, there a chance that a contagious agent exists within the host. The longer the
duration that the individual is kept alive, it may increase the risk of others being affected by the disease if
the individual is not handled properly.
No

6. isn't that what a hospital has i mean many people are sick and have diseases which are contagious but
they try to get cured that's why they go to hospitals. This is not a reason for not keeping them alive
because what if they actually get cured and got the chance to start a new life. I don't think that it will
REDUCE the spread of diseases becasue there are other people in the hospital that may suffer from
different diseases which may be contagious right? so does it stop on terminally ill people that they have a
contagious disease that's why they should be killed??
Pro
Yes
Coma patients are not 'living until their natural end' because modern medicine has developed so we can
support them artificially. Perhaps it was God's will that they die, and we are interefering in this plan by
treating them?
This point should be erased. The debate specifically says "Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or
mercy killing?". What is being advocated is the right of an individual to make a decision, not to have a say
or coerce an individual to make the decision to want to die. Although in some cases, involuntary
euthanasia has a dark region (grey area).
It is not moral to end the patient's life because he has the right to live
longer
Patients that are in comas and have not indicated that they wish to die have the right to continue thier
lives until the natural end. Who are we to say that they should die when it is convenient to us? That
should be left unto God to decide.
This point should be erased.
The debate specifically says "Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?".
What is being advocated is the right of an individual to make a decision, not to have a say or coerce an
individual to make the decision to want to die. Although in some cases, involuntary euthanasia has a dark
region (grey area).
pro
The first argument was removed. An appeal to a dictionary or a definition does not make it right or
justified in its position. However, it may be speculated or conceived that it is not murder because the
premeditated advancement of death by a person of another has been consented to in principle thereby
the choice being made is a deliberate one for which one's right in its very own nature permits the
condition to be moral.
Secondly for describing euthansia the Germans use the term Sterbehilfe which means "help to die" so
while the person and maybe society may be complicit in the "killing of a person" they are accessories and
not the actual agents of the killing as they are helping a person to die rather than determining that a
person should die, something that would be viewed as murder [[Collins lanugage dictionary]] .

7. Cons it is a murder
There are strong proponents on both sides of the debate for and against euthanasia. The word
euthanasia comes from two Greek words, ôeuö meaning good, and thanatos meaning death. Proponents
of euthanasia believe it is everyone's right to die at a time of their own choosing, and in a manner of their
own choosing, when faced with terminal illness rather than suffer through to the bitter end. Opponents
argue that euthanasia cannot be a matter of self-determination and personal beliefs, because it is an act
that requires two people to make it possible and a complicit society to make it acceptable .
They consider euthanasia the equivalent of murder, which is against the law everywhere in civilized
society.So, we sould maintain the respect for human life in a secular pluralistic society
Pro
While religious morality may be precise on who sets decides when a person dies secular values also
recognise if a person is suffering unncessarilly they should be helped to eliminate that suffering.
Futhermore a person may well be non religious and resent the imposition of religious or secular values on
them, values which they may not belive in. [[ Dr Adams "Personal Story- Dignity in
Dying"http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/personal-stories/uk/south-west/exeter/dr-adams-story33.html Accessed 1.06.2009]]
Additionally if this arguement is extended, certain individuals pick and choose biblical scripture (not wiping
out the land of a certainr ace) or selectively identify parts as something obselete (i.e. agricultural
practices). If an individual does this, the individual believes that there is a morality outside of religious
morality above the standard for which the biblical or context in which religion takes place and thus it is
moot whether the bible says so or not.
Sanctity of life cons
Religious and secular morality decrees that no one has the right to take the life of another human being,
A principle stated in the Quaran "[2.28] [Allah] will cause you to die and again bring you to life, then you
shall be brought back to Him." This surah states that if a creator has created an individual than it p.b.u.h
will decide whether you live or die and you can not take matters into your own hands.[[ University of
Michigan "The Koran"http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koranidx?type=simple&q1=life&q2=&q3=&amt=0&size=more
. This principle must be safeguarded by law, as moral absolutes of this kind are necessary for a
functioning legal system.