Wednesday, 3 August 2016

Class Debate: Against and For Euthanasia

We are currently doing an assessment that is about creating a response to a socio-scientific issue in New Zealand. In class we debated exactly about a socio-scientific issue which was euthanasia we were split in teams one that was for it and one that was against euthanasia.

Our main points:
It could cause pressure for them and their families when it comes to making this decision.
Also it says in the Bible that you should not take your own life because  Life and Death is in His own hands. In one of His Commandments it says, “Thou shall not kill.”

Opening the doors to voluntary euthanasia could lead to non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, by giving doctors the power to decide when a patient’s life is not worth living.  In the Netherlands in 1990 around 1,000 patients were killed without their request.

Their lives should be as valued and as important as the lives of people who are not sick. By giving them this choice we are also giving them the message that there lives are also not valued which can also force them into doing this because they feel like there life is not valued affecting this decision. This also show why they should not actually be given this decision because this could be what is actually affecting their decision which is not fair and not a nice way for them to end their lives feeling unvalued and like this is what they should be doing when they really don't want to. The nathaniel center organisation says “The right to die could easily become a duty to die.” This shows that elderly and disabled can feel like they are nothing but a Burden both financially and emotionally making them create this decision.  This is why they shouldn't be given this decision.

It’s Murder as although it is intentional a life is still being taken by someone and we should not put doctors in a position where they have to do this. This will have a major effect on the doctors and how it could actually affect them and how the decision of the person may affect them. The aim also goes against the doctor's code there job and duty is to eliminate pain and the hurting of the person not to kill them.  We are giving them a right to die because of the physical pain they are experiencing and saying that it is okay to do this because of the physical pain they are experiencing and because we can't help them fully take away the pain. Are we to also say that it is okay for people to kill themselves because we cannot fully help them with their emotional pain. Emotional pain can be just as bad as physical pain so if we are saying we should allow people to die because of the physical pain they are experience we should also say that people who are experiencing depression and psychologists or counsellors or the people around them are not able to help. By saying that we are also saying that suicide when experiencing huge emotional pain that we cannot fix is okay.

I want to clarify the point that bobbi about the emotional and physically pain...

It may be there decision but sometimes these decisions can be influenced.

Noah’s Ark Rebuttle:
  • God flooded the earth because He saw that His people were not living according to His will

Their main points:
Its their own personal choice
Information from one of the sites they used to help us rebuke what they may have argued:
  • To prevent suffering at the end of life, including pain that cannot be relieved by drugs. Some patients don’t want to be anaesthetised for their last days.

  • To maintain dignity in death. Terminally ill patients often lose control of their bodily functions and would prefer to die before becoming completely dependent on carers.

  • To retain personal control and be able to say when and how those with unbearable suffering die.

  • To allow terminally ill people who want to end their suffering to die in the company of friends and family and not have to commit suicide alone. While suicide is legal, a loved one who assists, or is even present at the time, risks prison.

  • To allow sufferers to depart this life while still possessing their mental faculties. This would allow dignified goodbyes to friends and relatives and limit mutual distress.

  • To eliminate compassionate law-breaking which risks prosecution.  It is recognised that some family members and doctors and nurses already assist patients begging for help to die because they cannot bear to see the suffering. A law change would legitimise their humane actions.

  • Surveys show that nearly seven out of 10 New Zealanders across every section of society favour End-Of-Life Choice for those who qualify and request it.  Many are angry after watching and caring for family members who have suffered long drawn out deaths and want a good death for themselves.
  • Assisted suicide is a term we don’t use in New Zealand, preferring the term ‘physician assisted dying’. It covers the process of assistance whether or not the person is able to take the medication themselves or needs someone else to help them. Suicide is currently legal in New Zealand, but assisting in a suicide is a criminal offence.

What they could say back to our main points and how we would shut them down:
but they could be forced to make that choice or the choice they make may not be what they really want because they of pressure they might get to actually take this option of Euthanasia and ending their life.  

It’s still murder and murder of the people can still be done and if there was a black market people who helped will still be charges because it is illegal and is still murder. There given a choice but jesus was not this was the choice of god if Jesus could go through the pain of the cross we should be able to go through the p

What we could say to shut down their main points:
They might have been forced to do it against their will

We used this site to support our arguments and fight against the arguments they would have used.

‘God gives and he takes away’
Some Christians and Muslims argue that God gives us our life and hence we have no right to authorise anyone to hasten our death. This concept needs to be considered in the context of our normal lives where we have the autonomy to make many health decisions which causes our life to be either lengthened or shortened e.g. we may refuse medical treatment, or we may choose to undergo many treatments in the hope of prolonging our life. In general, Christians believe that God has given us free will which is part of being in His image. So we have extensive autonomy for life’s decisions, but when we wish to hasten our dying to limit our suffering, some tell us we are not allowed to do that – ‘God would prefer you to suffer rather than get help to end your life. God would prefer you to lose all your dignity rather than being able to say farewell to your loved ones while still conscious’. We are dying anyway, but to enable a peaceful death is against God’s will? Is it? This does not seem compatible with our loving God, and sorrows will be no more when we depart this life to be with God.

Sacrifice may be good for you
Some Christians may argue that pain and suffering are good for your character and this is quite a pervasive concept in Christian thought. There is no doubt that the Bible supports suffering for the sake of the spreading of the gospel, and the suffering of Jesus is seen as necessary for our salvation. Suffering can also bring out good qualities in people. However, it is difficult to find a place where God or biblical writers say that futile suffering and pain is to be desired as one approaches death. Furthermore some argue that those caring for the suffering grow spiritually –but again it is difficult to accept that my suffering should happen to ennoble those watching me suffer.

Transition from life to death
It can be argued that Christians who regard death as a transition from life to another better state should be less worried about ‘hanging on to life at all costs’ than others.


  1. Thank you Bobbi for your very insightful comments and research you have done for your side of the debate. You have presented some compelling arguments and been prepared to consider multiple viewpoints to support your team. I like your arguments and they have made me think from a different perspective.

  2. Thank you Bobbi for your very insightful comments and research you have done for your side of the debate. You have presented some compelling arguments and been prepared to consider multiple viewpoints to support your team. I like your arguments and they have made me think from a different perspective.