This House Believes That Voluntary Euthanasia should be legal

Let there be a definition of of Euthanasia since it is clearly needed. " the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). also is known as "assisted suicide" Pro has provided us with three main points or substantives (which she elaborated on) that she has based her arguments on: 1) Justification : Pro believes that euthanasia is justified simply because a person may choose to be euthanised. People who contemplate euthanasia usually do so because they may be terminally ill or posses an incurable disease, that being said, their state of mind is thought not to be a 100% because they are dying and even if family is involved in the decision it is still not a fool proof solution as the family might have economic problems and opt for the easier solution or chose euthanasia simple to get rid of him/her. No should have the right to kill themselves or others , because it is a very illogical thing to legislate to a tiny proportion of society in comparison to the larger proportion. it is said " hard cases make bad law", euthanasia is often misleadingly linked to the phrase "right to die" (even pro has fallen into that pit), as it is not exactly the right to die at all... it's actually a right (if it actually is a right) to be killed by a doctor ... hence assisted suicide. Allowing difficult cases to create a precedent for legalised killing is the wrong response. We need rather to evaluate these difficult cases so that we can do better in the future. This was clearly demonstrated in the case of Nigel Cox, the Winchester rheumatologist found guilty of attempted murder after giving a patient with rheumatoid arthritis a lethal injection of potassium chloride in August 1991. Had he been willing to consult those specialised in pain management, he could have relieved his patient's symptoms without killing her.[2] If errors of omission are acknowledged, changes can be made. source : http://www.cmf.org.uk... Euthanasia may seem like showing mercy and putting a person out of their misery but in most legal systems, it is seen as murder. you may take the misery out of one life (whilst "painlessly" killing them) but really, you risk and endanger the life of many others in the same predicament. Research is done on incurable diseases like Cancer and alzheimer's disease, if we were to allow voluntary euthanasia, we'd destroy any chances of finding cures to diseases and potentially save thousands of lives. Research on euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide in Holland[6] showed that approximately 10% of the former and 30% of the latter forms of attempted ?mercy killings' investigated by the authors were complicated by untoward problems. They included patients who recovered from an induced coma, prolonged waiting for death, vomiting and fits; and technical problems with administering the lethal substance. Some patients experienced more than one complication. For these people, one could hardly distinguish the experience as death with dignity.(http://www.life.org.nz... Life is precious and passing a law for ALL countries to allow voluntary euthanasia would undermine the value and sanctity of life, sure, a cure may not come today or next week but its in the works and people are working hard for one, this is an easy way out in comparison to hanging in there and hoping for the best. 2)Social : pro said "Let's think logic. They suffer an ill that can't be cure. An example is : HIV. And you know that HIV is ill that can contagious. So, it will give bad influence for the sufferer it self. In their environment, they will feel discriminative. People in their environment will avoid them." that did not make enough sense to me to be a social impact. i will give you an example of a social impact. when it comes to Euthanasia, the crowd isn't split into majority and minority but rather evenly, to allow voluntary euthanasia. Islam and Christianity are the two biggest religious communities in the whole world, BOTH religions condemn suicide or killing oneself or mercy killing and since euthanasia can be called either one and all three of theses, euthanasia is forbidden and haram. Christianity story supporting my stance . story of JOB:In the Bible . . . In the book of Job, when Job is under great distress and in great pain, his wife says to him "'Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!' 10 But he said to her, 'You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. A279;A279;Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?' A279;A279;In all this Job did not sin with his lips." (Job 2:9-10). Basically, Job's wife wanted him to euthanize himself to avoid the pain of his life, but Job refused to do so, and in this he did not sin. Heb. 9:27, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." The Bible tells us that it is God who appoints people to die. Essentially, assisted suicide is an attempt to deny God his sovereign right to appoint who dies when. We must be careful not to take into our own hands the right that belongs to God. source: http://carm.org... Islam :It is Haram (prohibited) for a patient to hasten their death, whether by committing suicide or by taking medication to kill themselves. It is also Haram for a doctor, a nurse, or any other person to carry out the patient"s request, even if their disease is incurable. Anyone who assists in this shares in the sin, because they intentionally kill a human, whose life is protected by Shari"ah (Islamic law), without a right. There are clear Nas (Islamic texts from the Qur"an or the Sunnah) prohibiting the killing of a human being without a right. Allah (Exalted be He) says: ...and kill not anyone whom All"h has forbidden, except for a just cause (according to Isl"mic law). [Surah Al-Anam 6:151] And: And do not kill yourselves (nor kill one another). Surely, All"h is Most Merciful to you. And whoever commits that through aggression and injustice, We shall cast him into the Fire, and that is easy for All"h. [Surah Al-Nisa 4:29] Also, it was authentically reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Anyone who kills themselves with a piece of iron (a weapon) will have that piece of iron in their hand and will be stabbing their stomach with it in the Fire of Hell forever, abiding eternally therein. Anyone who drinks poison and kills themselves will be drinking it in the Fire of Hell forever, abiding eternally therein. And anyone who throws themselves from (the top of) a mountain and kills themselves will be throwing themselves down in the Fire of Hell forever, abiding eternally therein. (Agreed upon by Al-Bukhari and Muslim) source : http://islam.stackexchange.com... and finally... the economic effect of passing such a law: pro said " much money for their treatment". Money that goes into treatment pales in comparison to the investments that go into the research of cures which is actually millions. like i said before, allowing euthanasia would destroy chances for research for cures and therefore wasted money in the process. therefore taking down pros argument based on economy