euthanasia debate ideas?
95589
Sanctity vs quality of life.
723760
Try this site\nhttp://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/debate.html\n\nhttp://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/death_penalty.HTM\n\nhttp://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-73-625/politics_economy/death_penalty/
237815
This is an article [as requested by you], written by an unknown author, and posted on www.studyworld.com.  The author's views are his/her own, and do not in any way reflect Kittykid's views on this topic : \n                  Euthenasia\nSue Rodriguez, who openly advocated Euthanasia, has reminded us all of our own mortality and our need to think carefully about the kind of society we want to live and to die in. \nSue Rodriguez was known through the media, and her well spoken and eloquent speeches. People painfully in support of what she believed in, watched as her strength was sapped by the devastating disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), and we were moved by her clear thought and her bravery as a person facing death. \nHere was a woman who acted on her beliefs with\ncourage and tenacity and whose grace has enriched us all.\nIt is no defense to point to the fact that a person has\nrequested to be killed: "No person is entitled to consent\nto have death inflicted upon him, and such consent does not\naffect the criminal responsibilities of any person by whom\ndeath may be inflicted upon the person by whom consent is\ngiven," which seems to mean that no one has a right to\nconsent to have death inflicted on him or her. \nIn addition, if a person causes the death of another, the consent of the deceased does not provide the person who caused the death a defense to criminal responsibility. Is there a difference, do you think, between a person who, at a dying person's request, prepares a poison and leaves it on the bedside for that person to take, and a person who helps the patient to drink it or who administers it directly at the request of a dying person who is unable to take it personally? Is there, in short, a real distinction between killing and letting die? \nWell, this is the difference between passive and\nactive euthanasia, and if you believe in euthanasia, you\nmust decide which one is correct or even accept both to be\ncorrect depending upon the situation. We must carefully\nthink through a number of conceptual issues. What is a\nperson? What is death? How does the difference between\nactive and passive function in arguments for and against\neuthanasia? Is there any difference between killing and\nletting die? Suppose the doctor agrees to withhold\ntreatment... \nThe justification for his doing so is that the\npatient is in terrible agony, and since he is going to die\nanyway, it would be wrong to prolong his suffering\nneedlessly. But now notice this. If one simply withholds\ntreatment, it may take the patient longer to die, and so he\nmay suffer more than he would if more direct action were\ntaken and a lethal injection given. \nThis fact provides strong reason for thinking that, once the initial decision not to prolong his agony has been made, active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia, rather than the reverse. \nIndividuals have the right to decide about\ntheir own lives and deaths. Denying terminally ill patients\nthe right to die with dignity is unfair and cruel. The\ngolden rule requires that we allow active euthanasia for\nterminally ill patients who request it in certain\nsituations. \nPeople have the right to die with dignity and\nlucidity. Gayle Stelter (Vancouver Sun) writes, "For almost\nseven years I have been living with cancer, mostly joyously\nand gratefully, but gradually seeing the disease\nencroaching relentlessly on my once healthy body.\nThroughout these years, I have thought long and hard about\ndeath and I've discovered that it's not the prospect of\ndeath itself that is so frightening, but the process of\ndying. So to give myself courage, I have held an option in\nreserve.\nWhen I can see no quality ahead, when I am capable\nof bidding my loved ones a coherent farewell, when I am\nstill in control of my resources, I will enlist someone's\nhelp to speed me on my journey. \n... For those of us who may choose to leave while there is still
715244
The choice : I  mean everyone should have the choice to take this decision .I believe in life and that miracles are always possible .I ve been against before but there are cases where the patients are suffering a lot , where the idea of the death is the only way to calm the pain .Is it fair to let those people live , enduring the worst just because Euthanasia is considered as a crime and on the otrher hand do we have the riggt to kill , its a difficult question.Anyway the choice must be given to those person to take their own decision.But are the able to take the right decision in their situation?´i ´m sory i didnt answer the question!
1037359
http://www.beliefnet.com\n\nSome of the discussions over there do get pretty heated sometimes, but just ask, as you did above, for a rational discussion. You might end up getting one.
169634
Talk about The Da Vinci Code or some other more current literary controversy. Talk about JT Leroy, the supposed famous writer who happened to be someone completely different.\n\nTalk about spirituality, or philosophy. Some philosophers think communication is impossible since each word maps differently for each person, so no one really 'gets' what you say.\n\nTalk about animals. Fish are great to have. Ask him what sort of pets he's had, and what funny things they did.\n\nAbove all, go out, live a little. Life always gives great subjects to talk about. Take care.
753106
Difficult to put an absolute age on it - some people are useful way past the age of 50, others are useless from the age of 15.\nBut why not voluntary Euthanasia - someone who's got nothing to live for but tea and Emmerdale, might "want" to take a trip to the other side, just to see if it's true, or not. But they're not allowed to.
946375
There a lots of great ways to start this paper.  If I were writing it, I would probably start out with some interesting statistics and maybe even tell the story of Governor George Ryan (IL) commuting all the death sentences in Illinois before he left office a few years ago.  Or you could open with a couple of stories on both sides of the argument.  Good luck writing this.
1142564
Euthanasia is often an ethical choice, so long as it is the choice of the patient without undue pressure.\n\nThere are many aspects of our care system for the ill, disabled and elderly that require reworking to eliminate the undue pressure that might cause a patient to unnecessarily choose euthanasia when they might not otherwise make that choice.\nThese issues need to be addressed, then euthanasia should be legalized.\n\nKevorkian's freedom is problematic. Just choosing to violate the laws of a country cannot be freely sanctioned, and permitted, and he has said that he would continue physician assisted suicides.  He has served to point out the unfairness of our unjustifiable current situation.  Once the laws have been changed perhaps he could be officially pardoned.
907722
How about "Legalizing medicinal marijuana would be a humanitarian and compassionate act?"\n\nOr "Is world over-population an urban myth?"\n\nOr "The death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?"
828723
I believe it should be legal, I have taken care of alot of suffering people and have seen what death from cancer, ALS (Lou Gehrigs disease), Multiple Sclerosis, and many other things is like. Imagine being robbed of every possible function, not including being able to speak or even be able to lift your arm, but still having your mental capacity intact....Alzheimers is another big one, watching a spouse grieve so much because their husband/wife cannot remember 50 years of marriage or even their own children...sometimes people who are actively dying hang on for up to 2 weeks. If someone is in their right mind when diagnosed with something like that, they should be able to make the decision to terminate their lives at a specific point in the disease progression, as long as the situation matches their specified criteria...I used to say no way I would never do that or think that was ok but then I began working in the health profession, and I am not so naieve anymore, there is pure suffering happening every second of every day. We dont like to see our pets suffer so we put them down when it is their time, but we humans must suffer for many years sometimes before we are withered away to nothing and basically have nothing else the disease can take but your life. It should be legal!! Right to live means right to live with a good quality of life, but when the naysayers are laying on their deathbeds and having their BM cleaned up by total strangers stricken with some terrible affliction and no pain medication in the world will take it away, they might change their minds. Euthanasia, along with guidelines should be legal
418536
Go to: www.findarticles.com\nEnter: assisted suicide\n\nI came up with more than 1900 articles when I did this search.
911405
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=114\n\nhttp://www.lexisone.com/news/ap/ap012904b.html\n\nhttp://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/debate96.html\n\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1468301.stm
1148668
I have always said that if my illness ever takes me to a point where I am suffering unduly, where my dignity and self-worth are  compromised, I would want someone to take my life if I couldn't do it myself. Because this isn't legal,  I wouldn't expect anyone to do this for me but it is how I feel on the subject.\n\nWe do it for animals, so that they don't suffer, and I strongly believe in these circumstances euthanasia is thr only humane way.
947342
Anything that you feel strongly about and are well educated on. Topics could be ..... War in Iraq, abortion, national health care, removing or keeping the trade embargo against Cuba, seperation of church and state, and many others. Keep in mind that your opinion will likely be at odds with at the very least a few. Also make sure and research what points people will use to argue against your position, but mostly try and pick something you feel strongly about and prepare yourself.
650226
Current debates in evolution: Science vs. Religion, with special attention to "Intelligent Design".\n\nor\n\n"Iraq - Blood for oil or Defending democracy?\n\nor\n\n"Do Civil Rights include the right to marry, if you are Gay or Lesbian?"\n\nAll three have powerful arguments for and against, and lots of web sites / magazine articles you could cite.\n\n"What I plan to do this summer" would be easy, if the teacher will allow it.\n\n20 pages is a couple of thousand words. You'd better get started!
1087557
I'd address three topics:\n\n1.Is it justified (eg. eye for an eye, revenge Vs rehabilitation, rights of the victim and their family, risk of miscarriage etc)\n2.Is it effective (eg. is it a deterent, does it make better societies, is it cheaper than permanent incarceration etc)\n3.Is it legal (eg. is it a cruel and unusual punishment, the position of international law, etc)\n\nYou've probably been asked the US/UK part because we are fairly similar societies with a largely common ancestry\nand tradition, but the UK abolished the death penalty whilst much of the US still uses it.  You can go two ways on this - \n1. the US is a much younger society still in a vigourous development phase facing the challenges of it's huge size and diversity so frontier justice is still appropriate (similar claims for China by the way, the other big executor).  when the UK was trying to hold a huge empire together it executed loads of people too.\n2. the existence in the US of a more fundemental christianity gives people a different perspective on life (and death) from the broadly humanist (post christian) views in Europe (including the UK) where morality is more personal and less something learned from religion.  Religious Europe was a very bloody place indeed for hundreds of years.\n\nHope this helps, BTW my opinion is that it is as morally justifiable as war.  I really don't want to have to do it, but sometimes I might have to protect my family and society.  Right now I think both our societies could live without capital punishment, and therefore should - but that could change.