Oregon's Death By Dignity Law.

Once going through my opponent's debate, and seeing the references to John Stuart Mill, and the respect for autonomy. This underpinning of the argument exists in both the first and third argument, where it is stated the right to liberty, used equivalently to a respect for autonomy. The third argument is clearly utilitarian, going as far to quote Mill's most famous statement of what Utilitarians believe. Thus, I shall question this underpinning predicate, and instead put forth the more rationally justified Kantian ethics as a solution. Indeed, this ethical theory holds many times more respect for human autonomy and human life: the argument necessarily respects autonomy.The foundationsAs my opponent has not done so, I wish to present what euthanasia is. (Due to word limit, and this being a backdrop to what euthanasia is, the information can be found here http://www.debate.org...)Kantian Ethics and Euthanasia Kantian Ethics originated from Immanuel Kant, a famous Prussian philosopher. His ethics were known as being a Copernican Revolution due to the level of rational thought that went into their construction. Skipping many of the details - observable in A Foundation for the metaphysics of morals - He creates the theory based on a duty to respect autonomy: autonomy being freedom and reason together. As we are all moral autonomous agents, we all have a duty to be moral autonomous agents. Further, nothing is good except a good will - that is, an act is good only when it has good intentions. However, this does not yet help us know what good is. Hence, Kant delivered the Categorical Imperative, which is "doing duty for duty's sake". Though this seems simply like moving the goalposts, Kant came to a much stronger definition of what our duty is. Duty is in line with the three moral maxims: that is, unviersalisation of actions, using people as ends only, and never a means. From this, we can interpret the third maxim: work towards a kingdom of ends. Of course, this has not helped us yet: we must apply Kantian ethics. Let us go to what the Oregan Law states: in short, it claims that "If I am in a terrible condition, I have the right to kill myself, or (more importantly) give that right to another doctor or person)". But this would be open to abuse: we know for a fact that many will abuse this, and simply make the person die (or possibly keep living) for their own interest: they'd use the person as a means to an end. This is, of course, breaking the second maxim and, therefore, unacceptable to be a moral maxim.In fact, there is no moral maxim that allows euthanasia. Kantian ethics holds that if one commits euthanasia because one believes that the remainder of one’s life will be filled with more discomfort than pleasure, then one fails to treat oneself as an end. As long as you retain the capacities that makes you a person, then you have dignity and one ought to respect this dignity. Kantians agree that the point of life is the exercise of one’s personhood capacities in moral deliberation and choice. When one stops being able to be autonomous, one stops being a person. Thus, the death by dignity law, or any law, no longer needs to apply, as one stops being a self-conscious, rational person.If humanity is an end, no man has the right to take his life, even in whatever condition he finds himself. We must always act in a way which does not disrespect our fellow human man. It's disastrous if we act in such way as dehumanizing sourselves through euthanasia. I urge a vote CON, a vote for the respect of human life, and a vote for the respect of human autonomy. Thank you.