That allowing terminally ill patients to die when and how they choose is justified

Clarification: this debate is for OreEle's tournament and my opponent can use his own definitions for his case they are not debatable only what they entail is debatable. My position in this debate is that the right to commit suicide is not protected by the social contract because when life ends, all values aspirations, and moral duties; therefore, we should hold life sacred and condemn suicide. Hobbes and Locke tell us that all the rights of man, given by nature, presuppose our self interested attachment to our own lives. All natural rights trace home to the primary right to life. To analyze the resolution it is important to make definitions Terminaly ill - they are those who suffer from a life threatening disease, regardless of whether their death is near-term or long-term. so Pro must prove that patients who suffer from a terminal illness should be allowed to commit suicide, eve if they have potentially long lives with little pain and suffering ahead of them. The right to bodily integrity is that individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions about how to protect their health and well being. Committing suicide destroys bodily integrity. First, the right to bodily integrity does not guarantee the right to die. As leon Kass said none of the geat philosophers envisioned a right to die. though this is a state of libery, it is not a state of license. A man does not have the liberty to destroy himself. Since the right to self-determination meas the right to self-preservation, it does not include a right to die. The right to die does not expressly a anywhere in the constitution. Nor can it be implied from the fourteenth amendments due process clause. As justice Scalia wrote in Cruzan v Missouri: "there is no significant support for the claim that a right of suicide is so rooted in our tradition that it may be deemed 'fundamental' or 'implicit' in the concept of ordered liberty." Consider Netherlands a county that recognized the right to die, however is individual liberty in that society greater than in ours; in order for individual liberty to exist individuals must exist when a terminally ill patient commits suicide they end their individual liberties. If giving terminally ill patients have the right to die when and how they choose it would be redundant. You can have many rights and individual liberties but just throw them all away you can effectively end all of them. Neither self-determination and human liberty are greater in that society than in ours. Not only is there no right to commit suicide, but also the state has a strong interest in preventing this act. it is false to say that the state's interest in protecting life do not apply to those who are terminally ill because we do not know what the states interest are. I will demonstrate that the primary state interest is preserving the sanctity of life. This interest is substantial regardless of the health of the individual. consider, first that the state has a substantial interest in protecting the sanctity of life. Human values can be enjoyed only by the living. when the end of life comes, so comes the end of all of the individual's goals, aspirations, and values. Since life is the key to all that we cherish, it is the ultimate value. As Hobbes observed: " every man is desirous of what is good for him, and shuns what is evil. The chiefest of natural evils is death." A Michigan professor said " Life is sacred not because it is a manifestation of a transcendent creator but because it is life. The idea of sacredness is generated by the primordial experience of being alive, of experiencing the elemental sensation of vitality and the elemental fear of its extinction. Preventing terminally ill patients from killing themselves is important to protect the sanctity of life. Permitting or condoning any death undermines the sanctity of life. As just said , life is the foundation of all values without life there is nothing. Therefore, it is morally wrong for any individual to end his life. Suicide obliterates all values and degrades humanity, since it eliminates the subject and morality. individuals cannot live up to their moral obligations when they terminate their lives. since good can only happen to those who live suicide is never just. consider peoples psychological states when somebody who is terminally ill commits suicide they directly influence the people they have interactions or exchanges or relationships with. That means that the persons death directly impacts his family and friends, which might cause them to be depressed and they might attempt suicide or they might act out because they feel guilty and cause other people pain when they engage in a row. Dying of a terminal disease and intentionally killing yourself are two different actions in one you cause others around you to feel upset and worthless because they couldn't help youand you are forever remembered as the guy who killed himself but when you die people might still be sad but they don't blame themselves for your death nor do they feel guilty and so they don't infringe on others right to feel as little pain as possible Society can provide other options to individuals to lessen their pain and suffering without ending their lives. Medical science has produced a number of drug regimens that can substantially reduce pain. Also hospice programs offer high quality medical care and counseling for the terminally ill. Providing these avenues to the terminally ill can protect their bodily integrity without permitting them to die. Because there is no fundamental right to die, and because the state has a strong interest in protecting the sanctity of life, permitting terminally I'll patients to end their lives would violate the social contract.