Doctor Assisted Death

Thanks for instigating this critical debate about Doctor Assisted Death (DAD).I will first respond to my opponent's arguments and then lay out my own.REBUTTALSCon first argues that DAD "is wrong in the eyes of God". However, Con's argument fails for three reasons: 1: Evidence: Con fails to present any evidence about God's supposed opinion on DAD. As such, we don't know what God thinks about DAD at all. 2: Religious differences: Con fails to consider that his God may not be the God of all peoples of this planet. For example, atheists have no god, and suicide is perfectly acceptable within many religions (https://www.deathwithdignity.org...). For these people, whatever possible opinon Con's God may have on DAD is irrelevant. Even within his Con's own faith, there are many people who consider God to be merciful and willing to excuse sins like suicide because the person was in terrible anguish or excruciating pain. As such, it doesn't make sense to prevent these people from choosing their own path. It's their soul, not ours. 3: God's plan: This response is twofold.3.1: If God wanted to prevent someone from committing DAD, then God would surely intervene. Since God has not intervened, that means that this DAD was also part of God's plan. In his infinite wisdom, he has chosen to let this person take their own life. We may not understand his reasons -- but he is a higher intellect and cannot be questioned.3.2: To me, it seems wrong to say that humans should always worry about interfering with God's plan. For example: couldn't one extend Con's logic and say that any medical procedure is against God's plan, because it may increase or decrease that person's lifespan? If it is against God's plan to take a life, then it must also be against God's plan to save a life. But if we didn't do this, everyone would live brutish and short lives. Would Con argue that, if his grandmother is dieing of cancer, then it is "playing God" to treat her? Should Con let his grandmother die, just because he's worried about God's plan? No. God is merciful and wants us to live long and beautiful lives full of joy: he will know when the time is right. And if that time is when one of his Earthly subjects chooses DAD to move themselves off this mortal coil, then so be it. Con second argues that DAD is morally wrong because it's in the Hippocratic Oath not to play God. (Con sent the wrong link; this is the correct one: http://guides.library.jhu.edu...).It is true that the Hippocratic oath tells us that doctors should not play at God.However, I argue that it is not "playing at God" to assist someone else's life. Look at the third argument I made about God's plan. If it is "playing at God" to take a life, then it is also "playing at God" to save a life. This should be obviously problematic for the same reasons as above. Medicine would grind to a halt. Nobody would ever save a life -- or give any drugs, or set any bones -- for fear of "playing at God". This is obviously absurd. Without medicine, we wouldn't need the Hippocratic Oath in the first place!As such: DAD is not "playing at God", and the Hippocratic Oath should have no problem with allowing doctors to assist their patients in determining how -- and if -- they live or die.PRO CASEEveryone should have the right to determine what happens to their own body. That's why rape is wrong: someone is using your body against your will. That's why murder is wrong: your life is taken away against your will. And that's why DAD is acceptable: if someone decides that, in the face of some terminal illness, or while undergoing unbelievable pain, they want to pass on, that is their choice. It is true freedom to do as you wish with your body, and DAD is the ultimate expression of that freedom.In summary: If you believe that people should be able to determine how they live, then you must also believe that people should be able to determine how they die.Thank you.