Euthanasia

I’ll read it on Thursday night and render a judgment if you guys are willing to wait.

I read it two days ago, actually, and was thinking about judging it, but I wanted to have it be somewhat detailed, so was waiting until I had a free hour or so.

Thanks guys. Some interesting comments too.

Pav, of course you can take as much time as you want.

No biggies people. Trouble with this one is, the right to end your life when you want, as you want, is to me pretty much a given. It is our life after all. So I was forced to play the ‘emotional appeal’ card along with the ‘unfeasable in practice’ card, to have any hope at all.

Would have worked with any other audience, but ILP’s a tough crowd, emotionally speaking.

I still see a huge difference, morality-wise, between the DIY solution of suicide, and the forced complicity of a second party with euthanasia, but then it seems that’s just me. Oh well.

See, I don’t think that is a given more importantly, to just cede that from the get-go means you’ve got a pretty big problem from the standpoint of the debate, you know?

Good arguments though. I liked the wanting to kill the parents bit. Very effective.

I’m ceding it here, not there - and the debate’s over so, what’s the harm…?

From that thread:

Hmm. Dubious. In the question of ownership, if nothing else, I own my body, and whatever investments may have been made by interested parties during its construction and maintainance… Were all done without legally binding contracts. And the question of legality is moot anyway - you may repossess my car, but removing my physicality from the possession of my consciousness would prove somewhat harder.

A grey area perhaps. Ownership to me must involve adequate defence. You do not truly own that which another can take from you or destroy. If I was enslaved, then to some extent the ‘ownership’ of my body would pass to another and presumably they would act to defend against my theft by another slaver, however, they would fall down on the “or destroy” clause, as I could still successfully assault my own body, with a high likelihood of complete destruction, at whatever time I wished. They only own me for as long as I remain unwilling to employ the final veto.

I suppose a suicidal slave could be prevented from killing themselves forcibly, through immobilisation and intravenous nutrition, but that would negate their worth economically, which could be counted again as a ‘win’ for the slave regarding ownership. The ultimate ‘power of goodbye’ to quote Madonna once more.

Your life is your own, only its comfiness varies.

I dunno. It just felt in the argument that you were ceding territory from the get-go. Territory that could have effectively been fought over.

And, no. Your life is not your own. Your friends, family, nation, community, work, and all that all have a stake in it.

Aye, but it’s less than 51%. If I bankrupt the company, they can reclaim their losses after I go into receivership. Shylock would understand.

I disagree.

Why do you think it is less than 51%?

Why do you think it is more…? Are you strangelooping on me…?

Thank you for your patience.

I’m going to try to render a fairly detailed judgment, though it is not as detailed as I would like for a Debate. I overestimated how much time I had to spend on this tonight, and it turns out I only have about forty-five minutes, including the re-read.

Anyway, it doesn’t seem like this was intended to be an exceptionally formal Debate, and what few grammatical mistakes I observed from re-reading the posts are negligible (and mostly nit-picky) anyway.

Therefore, I have decided to adjudicate this Debate based entirely on the arguments presented. The format that I will use in judging this Debate will be such that I will start each individual with 15 points and deduct one-fourth of a point to one point for each error in argument that I determine exists. In the end, the individual with whom I am (generally speaking) most convinced by will also receive one point back on his score.

I will address errors in the order that they occurred:

[b]NOTE:

The following quote is quite central and will come up later:

[/b]

CHEEGSTER’s OPENING ARGUMENT

I’m going to deduct 1/4th of a point from Cheegster for bringing up, “Significantly mind altering,” diseases in his opening. (Second Paragraph under “Voluntary Euthanasia”)

He gives a brief mention to such diseases and then states, “However, in the vast majority of cases those who are diagnosed with a terminal illness still possess unadulterated thought, and their autonomy should be respected.” Basically, Cheegster presents his opponent with a potential argument against his position (if one’s mind is altered, then they are not of a disposition to make the choice) and then essentially admits that he has no counter-argument for it other than it’s not the case the majority of the time.

Cheegster’s “Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” section is rock-solid, as far as openings go.

In Cheegster’s, “Involuntary Euthanasia,” section, I find particular fault with:

That’s in reference to a person with Alzheimer’s Disease. The first problem that I have is the suggestion that the person in question is, “Scared of (his/her) doctor,” when, even within the context of the sentence, the person is scared of death. I think this directly counters Cheegster’s earlier statement that, “I am not arguing that involuntary euthanasia is permissible when the act can unequivocally be seen as not in the best interests of the individual in question.” The statement, “I don’t want to die,” is quite clear and unambiguous (unequivocal) so I would suggest that if a person outwardly wants to live (regardless of mental state) then allowing that person to live is unequivocally in that person’s best interest.

Besides, Cheegster’s statement here basically assumes that, “Unbearable pain,” is such that it be more unbearable than the thought of dying. However, it is clear that if a person experiencing the pain still would not rather be dead, then the thought of death is clearly the more unbearable of the two.

Given that this was the conclusion to Cheegster’s opening post, I find no alternative but to deduct a full point.


TAB’s OPENING ARGUMENT

I think that Tab does a good job expressing the sheer quantity of Religious adherents in the World in an effort to make his Religion-Based argument relevant, unfortunately, it still isn’t. A few other items (that are currently legal, at least in U.S.) that the vast majority of the world’s religions do not believe in is drunkeness, divorce and abortion. I find that merely because something is legal does not necessarily mean that an individual has to participate in it; it is simply an option for an individual who has no moral problem with the thing in question.

Ultimately, I find Tab’s section on Religion, in and of itself, without merit and deduct a full point.

Tab’s Economical argument read like an argument in favor of Euthanasia, until he reached the point which mentioned the potential for abuse for personal gain. That’s the first real chink Tab took out of Cheegster’s armor, and I do not believe Cheegster countered in the best way possible (though it wasn’t bad) as will be described later.

Ironically, given Tab’s Religious argument, he later stated, “Those that disapproved would simply not euthanize their relatives.” Of course, there’s no additional deduction for that, I just thought it was ironic given my critique of his Religious section.

As far as an opening is concerned, I find that the, “Economical,” section of Tab’s opening was solid.

THIS:

Was excellent.

While Tab’s sections (with exception to Religion) were exceptional in and of themselves, it must be acknowledged that Tab only fully addressed Involuntary Euthanasia…and maybe…if construed in just the right way…Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. With all due respect, I cannot help but conclude that Tab failed to address Voluntary Euthanasia in any appreciable way whatsoever in his opening, and many might assume that to be the most common form of Euthanasia. I suppose it was briefly covered in the Religious part, but again, that part is dismissed as being inapplicable.

However, it is without doubt that Tab Attempted to address Voluntary Euthanasia, albeit only in the Religious part, therefore, I will only deduct a half of a point.


CHEEGSTER’S REBUTTAL:

Cheegster immediately attacks the Religious portion of Tab’s argument. In fact, no less than 60% of Cheegster’s rebuttal is an attack on the Religious (weakest) portion of Tab’s opening argument. It is true that every argument by an opponent should be addressed, but Tab’s Religious argument could have been addressed with nothing more than a cursory dismissal and it would have been fine. The part about people of Religion being, “Stupider,” is also mildly offensive, and I’m not Religious!

Ultimately, the part about it being mildly offensive doesn’t matter, and Tab’s Religious argument (to the extent that it could be considered relevant) was countered fairly well. However, given the unnecessary attention given to said counter in comparison with Tab’s (two) better arguments that should have (individually) received as much or more attention, I’m going to deduct half a point.

In relation to greed taking over and someone offing a relative for financial gain, the thrust of Cheegster’s initial argument is, “But just because somebody may have this urge in order to cash in on said relative’s savings, it doesn’t mean it will always happen.” That’s basically the same thing as me stating that it’s fine to jump off a building, because a person jumping off of a building isn’t going to die every time. In fact, Cheegster basically already stated (in his long assault on the Religious aspect of Tab’s post) that it won’t always happen which is clear because the Religious people will not do it. Briefly, arguing something will not, “Always,” happen is simply an argument that it will happen less than 100% of the time, which incorporates 80% of the time, 90% of the time, 99.99999% of the time…etc. It’s a non-argument, and warrants (in my humble opinion) a half point deduction.

The rest of Cheegster’s argument can be summarized with, “But whilst I understand that we can’t let mental cold blooded buffoons take matters into their own hands when it comes to matters of euthanasia, I also think that we can put our trust in certain individuals and a rigorous system to do case by case analysis of proposed euthanasia with basic guidelines.” I think that even absent an independent counter-argument, Cheegster should have realized that, “Certain individuals,” operating under a, “Rigorous system,” will result in a back-log of people who want to die (much like Courts are behind in cases) and that eventually it will reach a point where, despite application, the people are dying on their own faster anyway! I’m only going to deduct a quarter-point for this though, I think that perhaps he should have said that it be left up to the individual’s doctor as to whether or not to approve.


SIDE NOTE:

Actually, I think the best counter-argument against Tab’s position in that particular situation is something of a power-of-attorney argument in combination with something on the medical record (taken when an individual is of sound mind and body and able to make a rational, independent, decision) that authorizes an individual to make that decision on the person’s behalf, or specifically states that only the person themselves can make that decision. Even more specifically, a person might have a medical option available to them to put on the record such as, “Do not euthanize under any circumstances.”


TAB’s REBUTTAL:

The first part of Tab’s rebuttal seems to address the concept of Voluntary Euthanasia by first stating that there might be ways to alleviate pain by essentially turning off or dialing down the parts of an individual’s brain that cause said individual to be experiencing pain. Finding no fault with that argument, I will move on to the second paragraph.

The second paragraph focuses on Cheegster’s use of the words, “Unadulterated thought,” and counters said use by stating that the agony that the person experinces adulterates that person’s thought. I do not find particular fault with that statement, in and of itself, but when applied to Euthanasia (presumably to end the agony) it seems that the level of pain would necessarily factor into an individual’s decision. Simply stated, were it not for the pain, the individual would theoretically not be in a position where he is considering doctor-assisted suicide to begin with, therefore, the pain is (necessarily) inseperable from the consideration anyway. The ultimate result, in my opinion, is a non-argument because the experience of agony vs. death is what is being decided, therefore, that which is being decided should not be used as a basis for determining that the person should not decide upon it. Because (with exception to the possibility presented in the first paragraph) the two are inseperable the argument is a non-argument, thus, I deduct half a point.

Tab’s argument that someone could simply commit suicide the good old fashioned way is quite logical and well-founded. I suppose the only way this argument could be assailed is for Cheegster to mention that some people are physically incapable of committing suicide (literally), but it does not seem that Cheegster does, at least not in direct response, so that’s actually going to be a negative half-point to Cheegster.

Tab addresses Cheegster’s Counter-Religious-Argument by stating that Cheegster’s statistically-backed opinion that Religious people are stupid is not going to help push through legislation. While I do not dispute the validity of this position, it does not seem to relate in any way as to whether or not Euthanasia should or should not be legal, just whether or not it would be voted for. However, this is a minor point, so I’m only going to deduct one-fourth of a point.

Given that both participants have largely ignored the possiblity that an individual could make whether or not he is to be euthanized a formal part of his medical record, Tab makes an incredibly sound argument (particularly in the first paragraph under the picture, and the paragraph above the picture) against Utilitarianism.

The remainder of the post is largely an emotional appeal which will not be addressed either way.


CHEEGSTER’s CONCLUSION:

Cheegster opens with a strong contra-counter argument to Tab’s Utilitarianism counter-argument. He basically re-emphasizes that he stated right off the bat that Euthanasia is meant to be in the best interests of the individual in question rather than society-at-large, and that Euthanasia would hardly become a default position as Tab seems to imply. He essentially accuses Tab of exaggerating the issue, which is probably true, but made for a terrific counter-argument in Tab’s Rebuttal.

The Utilitarian argument concludes at basically a dead-lock.

Cheegster then re-emphasizes the rigorousness of the system that would be in place, apparently still not realizing that if the system becomes too rigorous it will defeat its own intended purpose, so I’m going to knock off a quarter of a point for that.

Cheegster eventually hints at the possiblity of a vote, “if it can be decided by a community…” Again, I’m uncertain where the need for a vote (or any discussion thereof) is relevant to the matter at hand which is essentially a should or should not, as opposed to a would or would not, sort of thing.


TAB’s CONCLUSION:

Tab’s conclusion brought substantial new argument into the Debate which Cheegster was unable to counter given that he had no posts remaining, therefore, I will directly counter all new argument and address it that way.

Tab first cites the Hippocratic Oath which (allegedly) states:

However, the Modern Hippocratic Oath (Dr. Louis Lasagna) (in wider use) states:

Simply put, the Modern Hippocratic Oath does not absolutely prohibit the taking of a life, but rather states that it be done with humbleness and awareness. For example, many Doctors put death row inmates to death as it stands now, and their ethical justification for doing so is that they are individuals who are knowledgeable in the correct way to do things, therefore, they can prevent anything from going substantially wrong in that the subject will be executed correctly.

Euthanasia would work the same way in this sense. The individual would be dying because he/she wants to die not because the individual’s doctor wants him/her to die. In fact, if the Euthanasia doctor and the primary care Physician were one in the same, then the Doctor would actually have an economic interest in keeping the patient alive!

Were Tab’s misapplication of the Hippocratic Oath willful, I would deduct a full point. However, I can only assume that it’s an oversight, so I will deduct one-half of a point.

Given the above fact, the next couple paragraphs of Tab’s post are irrelevant as no separate entity to administer Euthanasia involving individuals who are not doctors would be required.

Tab brings up the argument that an individual might bring suit to prevent a family member from being Voluntarily Euthanized, but I consider this a non-position. First of all, lacking explicit power-of-attorney, that individual has absolutely no say in what the other person does. Secondly, I do not believe that a person could move, post facto, to have an individual declared mentally unable to make that decision. By post facto, I mean, the fact is the person has already made the decision to be Euthanized prior to be declared mentally unfit to make the decision. To declare the person unfit to make a decision that they have already made just doesn’t seem to make much sense. I deduct one-fourth of a point.

Tab’s concluding sentence is good, and he makes the argument, in a round-about way that not only does the person die while waiting for the Court proceedings to hammer out, but they also sacrifice what remanining dignity and positive familial relations they had in the process. This basically works strongly against Cheegster’s “Rigorous standards,” argument to the extent that said argument is rendered a nullity. In short, if it can’t be done quick, then it can’t be done at all.

The Power-of-Attorney argument would have helped Cheegster’s position, but he never made it.

SCORE: Cheegster: 11.75 Tab: 12

Given the scoring system outlined above, it would come down to whose argument I found the most compelling. Ultimately, I found both arguments equally compelling because I didn’t have much of a stance in the first place and I don’t have much of a stance now. I believe that both combatants advanced a few really strong arguments, that both advanced a few good counter-arguments and that both missed a couple of solid opportunities.

It was an enjoyable Debate, the only major error (which was mutual) was getting away from the subject of this Debate, which is, whether or not Euthanasia should be legalized. Feasibility was discussed which has nothing (directly) to do with the should/should not question, and so was the question of whether or not people would vote for it which has nothing to do with the should or should not question.

Almost all Debates in this format get away from the direct subject on occasion, though, so it’s to be expected.

So much for forty-five minutes…

I think it’s a basic value, not something to be debated. Ultimately, it comes down to what sort of society you want to live in. Which is in turn very dependent on what your experiences were in the one you grew up in.

There’s a very interesting classification system for cultures, Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (see http://www.geert-hofstede.com/) - one of the cardinal dimensions is Individualism/Collectivism.

I don’t even think we need to go that far. Then again, Ames correctly pointed out that Western ethnocentricism displays itself by universalizing the Western experience and I admittedly such a disposition does affect me.

But in another thread, you (Tab) pointed out that it wasn’t your own death that you feared but that of friends and loved ones. This suggests, to me, that you are in fact aware of the underlying truth that we are more invested in others than we are in ourselves as others are more invested in us than they are in themselves.

It isn’t that you don’t have a stake in it, but that stake is certainly less than 51%.

Thanks for the time you put into that Pav, you’re a gentleman and a scholar.

You’re welcome, Tab, and thank you for the compliment.

I didn’t outwardly intend for the scores to be so close. I often question a scoring system that results in such close scores to the extent that I consider it to be somewhat results-driven. I don’t mean results-driven in the sense that the person has pre-planned a particular winner, but results-driven in the sense that a winner having been (legitimately) determined, the losing party’s score is artificially propped up to make the Debate appear to be closer than it was.

I assure both of you that was not the case in this Debate. In fact, after doing my re-read I then had the Debate minimized in another window and was referring to the posts (and arguments) in the order in which they happened. I’ll admit that the amounts of my deductions were wholly arbitrary and not based on any kind of a formalized system, but at the same time, I was not keeping a running tally (or even keeping total amounts deducted) as I went through my judgment. In fact, I didn’t total the deductions until the end, and prior to said totalling, I thought that I actually had Cheegster as the winner.

That does not mean his argument was more compelling, however. I determined prior to making the totals that I found neither argument more compelling than the other; I suppose there were just too many missed opportunities that, if taken, would have resulted in a clear winner. Of course, had each of you seized upon every available opportunity, I guess the Debate would have still been a split.

Hmmm I’m kinda torn here, being as I believe that we should kill all humans, but can see a very valid need to exercise caution on the issue and implementation of what gives someone a right they already have, but cannot or are not allowed to exercise.

Nope I’m going to go with the kill all humans philosophy, much simpler. :slight_smile:

Aaah an excellent lenghty analysis Pav, much obliged.

I’ll just pick up on a couple of things which I thought weren’t caught though. Firstly -

I did indeed say that ‘it doesn’t mean it will always happen’. But then I said ‘small majority of people…’ - to mean that it wouldn’t happen all the time (as Tab was arguing), but that only a small amount of people would consider it, and EVEN THOSE would not be able to get through the filter, that filter being this.

Also your side note about the doctors note as well as an attorney is what I had in mind from the start, but I just searched the debate and aparrently I didn’t mention the word ‘doctor’ once! No idea how I missed it, genuinely thought I put it in there somewhere. Oh well.

I’ll happily take that as a vote for myself, as long as you read the debate…

*EDIT- That’s ‘read’ in the past tense. You can read that as read as opposed to read. Just read.

No need to be obliged, it was fun.

I suppose I should address this by first pointing out that, “Small majority,” is a contradiction. If not a direct contradiction, then it indicates (at the very least) that it will happen more often than it doesn’t happen. I apologize, but it was just poor word choice, in my opinion. You could have said, “Small percentage of people,” “Small amount of people,” or anything like that. I knew what you meant, of course, but in terms of judging a Debate, I have to read what’s there.

All other things being equal, you’d have won the Debate if the mention of either explicit power of attorney, or a note on the medical records had been made.

Whoooops! Yup, definite contradiction. A silly and small yet glaring mistake.

I did already, well most of it. Not got the time atm, will read the rest later.