Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional

I am rather bothered though, I didn't realise that this would turn into a lecture on English, a language which you evidently have no grasp of. I must admit that re-reading my sentence, the one that you most helpfully quoted for me, I can find no fault with it. But for the sake of my opponent, who I can only assume is either insane or simple, let me re-iterate. The title of the debate is 'Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional'; if you have not yet noticed, I am representing the 'pro' side, as you should have concluded due to my name being in the big, green 'PRO' box. Therefore, my sentence, 'However, I see no reason as to why, when it has been checked by a medical professional and deemed as acceptable under the circumstances by the same medical professional, it should not be legalized', means that I see no reason as to why euthanasia should not be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional. I hope this clears things up for you, opponent. In the off-chance that you are still, somehow, unable to understand my position in this debate, I am arguing that euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained professional. I must say that it does seem to me that you have accepted this debate purely for a provision of a complete analysis of my prose, is this the case? If so, then bless your heart, I will provide one for you. 'So why is that different in the case of people who are not imminently suffering from heart attacks or other fast-acting, terminal conditions. ' In the context of the paragraph it belonged to, this sentence questioned the morality of allowing people who have signed DNR's (Do Not Resuscitates) to die, yet not allowing those who are suffering from a painful or debilitating condition, such as motor neurone disease, to die, just because they are unable to do it themselves. 'It was not uncommon, in the realms of History, to hear of doctors bringing about the end of their patients lives to help them avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. ' This sentence states that, in the past, patients trusted their family doctor's to end their lives when they were suffering from an incurable disease upon request. I see no reason as to why it should not be very much the same nowadays. 'This, I feel, would negate at least most of the controversies of the debate, as well as negate the arguments that are commonly used to combat the view that euthanasia should be internationally legalised. ' This sentence suggests that the use of a medical professional to determine whether euthanasia may takes place negates the commonly arguments that are used to debate against euthanasia being legalised. Now I shall approach your view that buying a pill from a website which has quoted a doctor whom you don't know and who may or may not know that he or she has been quoted is much the same as allowing a doctor whom knows you, has your files and knows of your wishes, to decide as objectively as possible whether or not euthanasia may take place in your case. You see, opponent, I'm not saying that we should never question authority, however I am saying that if there is a person that you should be able to trust with decisions about your life, it is a doctor. I would certainly disagree with your stance that doctor's should never be trusted, would you also decline chemotherapy if you got cancer because it was approved by medical professionals? Or would you choose not to allow a surgeon to remove the bullet and stitch the wound if you were shot? Afterall, the procedure would have first been approved by a medical professional. Your lack of faith in the medical profession is somewhat disturbing, do you, in fact, trust anybody? Medical professionals follow strict ethical guidelines nowadays, one slip up and they can very easily lose their job. I can see no reason as to why a medical professional would risk losing their job in order to end the life of somebody that they know in passing. But if you insist, maybe it would be better to have a council of medical professionals who go through the case files and talk with the patient before making a decision on euthanasia. I do hope that in the next round you don't just pick apart my prose. Your turn.