All Topics

Motion · Ethics & Morality

Should people have the right to end their own lives?

A case for

No; Humans are emotional creatures, we don’t always think about things rationally. A momentary lapse in judgement paired with the tools for one to end their own life could result in people making a decision they could never take back. Death is permanent, depression may not be. Moreover, vulnerable individuals — teens, people with mental health problems, people in extreme pain — could be exploited or targeted with stuff like MAID or even without targeting could end up having life ending treatment without thinking about the real consequences. Allowing people to just blatantly end their own lives, especially like in Canada where it is even recommended for minor ailments(A perfectly healthy 80 year old woman with back pain was recommended MAID, she denied it, but it goes to show the risks of suck programs.), would have unprecedented consequences. Even more than that, people with mental health disorders (bipolarity, schizophrenia, etc) would be especially at risk. Death is permanent, human life has value, a society allowing people to discard their lives without a second thought is not one I’d like to live in. Rather than allowing people to commit suicide, we should expand mental health treatment. Spend on getting vulnerable individuals the proper care, don’t tell them to kill themselves.

The first objection

You're arguing *against* right-to-die laws, so I'm arguing *for* them—and your own logic defeats you. You say depression isn't permanent but death is. Fine. Then why deny competent adults the autonomy you'd grant them over any other irreversible choice—surgery, amputation, organ donation? If someone's suffered thirty years of intractable pain or terminal illness, you're not protecting them by forcing continued suffering. You're just transferring their agony to another day. Your Canada example proves the opposite of your point: the woman *rejected* MAID and lived. The safeguard worked. That's not a flaw, that's the system functioning. And your solution—expand mental health care—I agree completely. But that's not either/or. Treatment *and* choice aren't mutually exclusive. Why deny the right while we build better care?

3 selected cases on record

Choose the opposition

Cases on record

vs Christopher Hitchens · 15w ago

68–76

Human opening

No; Humans are emotional creatures, we don’t always think about things rationally. A momentary lapse in judgement paired with the tools for one to end their own life could result in people making a decision they could never take back. Death is permanent, depression may not be. Moreover, vulnerable individuals — teens, people with mental health problems, people in extreme pain — could be exploited or targeted with stuff like MAID or even without targeting could end up having life ending treatment without thinking about the real consequences. Allowing people to just blatantly end their own lives, especially like in Canada where it is even recommended for minor ailments(A perfectly healthy 80 year old woman with back pain was recommended MAID, she denied it, but it goes to show the risks of suck programs.), would have unprecedented consequences. Even more than that, people with mental health disorders (bipolarity, schizophrenia, etc) would be especially at risk. Death is permanent, human life has value, a society allowing people to discard their lives without a second thought is not one I’d like to live in. Rather than allowing people to commit suicide, we should expand mental health treatment. Spend on getting vulnerable individuals the proper care, don’t tell them to kill themselves.

First rebuttal

You're arguing *against* right-to-die laws, so I'm arguing *for* them—and your own logic defeats you. You say depression isn't permanent but death is. Fine. Then why deny competent adults the autonomy you'd grant them over any other irreversible choice—surgery, amputation, organ donation? If someone's suffered thirty years of intractable pain or terminal illness, you're not protecting them by forcing continued suffering. You're just transferring their agony to another day. Your Canada example proves the opposite of your point: the woman *rejected* MAID and lived. The safeguard worked. That's not a flaw, that's the system functioning. And your solution—expand mental health care—I agree completely. But that's not either/or. Treatment *and* choice aren't mutually exclusive. Why deny the right while we build better care?

Read the full case →

vs Christopher Hitchens · 29w ago

62–84

Human opening

Yes. If people do feel that their lives are full of infinite suffering, they should have a right to end their own lives.

First rebuttal

Ah, the seductive siren song of "autonomy" when suffering rears its ugly head. But to simply acquiesce to the impulse to self-annihilation, particularly when despair often clouds judgment, is not a mark of compassion, but rather a profound failure of society. Indeed, a significant number of individuals who request assisted suicide in places like Oregon ultimately do *not* take the lethal medication, finding solace merely in the option.[1][2] This suggests a desperate cry for control and relief, not necessarily a genuine desire for death. What kind of society offers a death sentence instead of robust, unwavering support and treatment?

Read the full case →

vs Christopher Hitchens · 20w ago

58–72

Human opening

Humasn should not have the right to end their own lives. Human lives are a gift from god, ending that is terrible. Murder is illgeal so why should suicide be a right? It should not. Also, think about the botches that could happen, Studies estimate that roughly 90–97% of attempts survive and can cause life altering injuries.

First rebuttal

You've neatly trapped yourself in a logical absurdity. If life is God's gift, then surely God granted us autonomy, the very faculty to make choices about our own existence. You can't have it both ways—divine gift AND no say in what happens to it. Your murder comparison collapses instantly. Murder violates another person's autonomy. Suicide exercises it. Completely different moral categories. And those survival statistics you cite? They prove my point. People attempting suicide are *desperate enough* to risk severe injury. That desperation deserves compassionate access to reliable options, not forced suffering. Botched attempts aren't an argument against the right—they're an argument for safe, legal methods that eliminate the botching. Why should unbearable suffering be the price of God's "gift"?

Read the full case →

Adjacent motions