Speech in debate (Affirmative)

Euthanasia is humane and merciful as an idea but it looked immoral because

some people consider it as a form of murder since it involves taking away of a persons
life. But, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, euthanasia is the act or practice
of killing or permitting the death of a hopelessly sick or injured individual for the sake of
mercy. This just shows that there is a significant difference between murder and
euthanasia. The individuals who undergo a euthanasia procedure are those who are
terminally ill persons who suffer not only physical but also emotional stress. Often times,
these individuals are able to live a month or two after they became terminally ill. In other
words, it was a last resort -an escape hatch used by patients in unbearable agony who
would rather that agony ended now that in two days time. Now, are we going to refuse
such request from a sick and suffering person? If we do so, then, who gave us the right
to force someone to suffer? Wouldnt it be cruel to allow a human being to linger for
months in the last stages of agony, weakness and decay the refuse to give their
demand for a merciful release? This is an act of greediness. We should also think of
how a bedridden person feels, that every second of his remaining life he is fully
depending on the people around him because he cannot do even the simplest task that
he should be the one doing. In addition, the patient also has to endure an everyday full
of pain. Yes there are pain killers and other drugs or treatments that will be able to
relieve pain but these remedies are way to expensive and causes only temporary relief
to the patient which means that the patients family has to avail these expensive drugs
from time to time. So, would depending on other people and thinking of how unfortunate
his life had become be the day to day routine of a terminally ill person? Every person
has the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to
make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue to live a life that is
full of suffering because of an illness or incapability. Terminally ill persons should be
given their demand for a peaceful end. In that way they will be able to at least keep their
dignity.
Treatments for incurable diseases are yet to be discovered. Even with our
modern technology and advanced medication, the day for discovering such cure is still
uncertain and even if a cure is discovered it will be very expensive and only few people
will be able to avail it. That is why euthanasia should be allowed instead of making a
terminally ill person suffer while waiting for an uncertain day.

Speech in debate (Negative)

Euthanasia is the act of killing or permitting the death of terminally ill person for
the sake of so called mercy. This is a very delicate issue that could lead human beings
in making a scale for measuring the importance of a persons life. Eventually, questions
that are beyond the interpretation of man will be raised. Questions like, to what state
can we say that a persons life is still important? Does a persons capability or
incapability determine the value of his life? If people evaluated a persons life worthless,
is it right that they kill him just because they pity him? Euthanasia is a dangerous
procedure that cannot be undone once done. That is why we created arguments that
will state the beneficial, practical, and necessary reasons for not allowing euthanasia.
Firstly, not allowing euthanasia will be beneficial not only to the suffering ill
person but also to his loved once. Suffering is not always bad. Through suffering, a
person learns to make a deeper introspection of his life. This results to the spiritual
growth of that person which will contribute to his recovery and if not it could also help
keep a person calm and at peace even if death is imminent. The patients loved once
will also be able to show how great their love is for the patient by taking good care of the
latter. Theyll be able to make the patient feel that even if he thinks that he is a great
burden to his family, his family will be happy to carry that burden.
Secondly, not allowing euthanasia will be practical because it will prevent
doctors, nurses, and other health professionals to have too much power that they might
abuse. Example, a doctor might be euthanizing patients just to free up beds in hospitals
or they could resort to euthanizing a patient just because they wanted to be free from
the hard work of applying complex medication to a certain patient or worse, they could
be euthanizing patients just to earn money. Preventing euthanasia will also be practical
because it will prevent jeopardy not only to the present terminally ill persons but also to
those who are unfortunate enough and became terminally ill in the future.
Lastly, not allowing euthanasia will be necessary to protect the value of lives of
terminally ill or disabled persons. Even today, there is discrimination towards these
kinds of people what more if euthanasia is accepted legally and morally? These people
will just be pressured to stop being a burden to their family hence; theyll be forced to
avail an assisted suicide so that their family will be free from the responsibility of taking
care of them.
There is an English saying, The end does not justify the means. This means
that no matter how good our intention is the way we achieve it still matters. This can be
related to the practice of euthanasia. A person might kill or permit the death of a
terminally ill patient because he is showing mercy to the patient but his way of giving
mercy to the patient still matters. He might have taken of the problem for now but there

will come a time that he will regret what he has done. The bad thing about euthanasia is
that it is irreversible once a patient is euthanized it can never be undone.