I watched this debate with interest for a couple of reasons. I’m getting close to the wheelchair/depends/baby food scenario. I’m hoping that a massive heart attack will solve the inevitable problem, but failing that, I’d like to have my options open for no other reason than to preserve what little dignity I possess. (not much, but it’s all I got)
Tab, It’s a bit unfair, but I know you well enough to see that your heart really wasn’t in this one. All your objections noted, they are all issues that procedures could easily overcome. Given the squirm factor of playing god, I seriously doubt that the evil side of euthenasia would be given much room to operate. One compelling argument you missed is euthenasia for the purpose of collecting replacement body parts for the black market. That would definitely be an evil product sellable in poverty stricken countries. I can see some poor Indian with a wife and seven children being told that after going to the big sleep, his family can sell his bits and pieces for enough money to live the good life. I mean, he’s going to die at some point, why not now and support his starving family? But in developed countries with strong rule of law, euthenasia could be regulated well enough to insure that the evils would be kept down to a dull roar. You might have mentioned hospice, which is just slow euthenasia. The dying are fed enough dope to keep them out of pain (and out of mind) till the body gives up. Hospice is green-lighted in most developed countries right now, so a form of euthenasia is already in practice.
Cheegster, I think that you had the right idea in emphasizing individual rights for making the live-die decision. You might have pushed it a little harder, because euthenasia is finally an argument over what is best for the individual -vs- everyone else. You might have been a little too polite and had Tab put up a harder fight, you might have lost.
So I vote for Cheegster on this one. My vote may be slightly skewed because I wanted him to win before the debate started.
The debate might have been more interesting if the discussion revolved around the right to choose and who get’s to make that decision instead of the downstream effects of euthenasia.