BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused

The guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no harm: a physician must not be involved in deliberately harming their patient. Without this principle, the medical profession would lose a great deal of trust; and admitting that killing is an acceptable part of a doctor’s role would likely increase the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it. Legalising assisted suicide also places an unreasonable burden on doctors. The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes against all they stand for. The Hippocratic Oath that doctors use as a guide states 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.'[1] [1]Medical Opinion, religiouseducation.co.uk http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/alevel/ethics/euthanasia/DpFS_MedOp.html  (accessed on 4/6/2011)
If someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them

Those who commit suicide are not evil, and those who attempt to take their own lives are not prosecuted. However, it is your moral duty to try and prevent people from committing suicide. You would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply because it is his choice; and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the same way, you should try to help a person with a terminal illness, not help them to die. With the exception of the libertarian position that each person has a right against others that they not interfere with her suicidal intentions. Little justification is necessary for actions that aim to prevent another's suicide but are non-coercive. Pleading with a suicidal individual, trying to convince her of the value of continued life, recommending counseling, etc. are morally unproblematic, since they do not interfere with the individual's conduct or plans except by engaging her rational capacities (Cosculluela 1994, 35; Cholbi 2002, 252).[1] The impulse toward suicide is often short-lived, ambivalent, and influenced by mental illnesses such as depression. While these facts together do not appear to justify intervening in others' suicidal intentions, they are indicators that the suicide may be undertaken with less than full rationality. Yet given the added fact that death is irreversible, when these factors are present, they justify intervention in others' suicidal plans on the grounds that suicide is not in the individual's interests as they would rationally conceive those interests. We might call this the ‘no regrets' or ‘err on the side of life’ approach to suicide intervention (Martin 1980; Pabst Battin 1996, 141; Cholbi 2002).[2] [1] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/suicide/#DutTowSui  (accessed 7/6/2011) [2] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/suicide/#DutTowSui  (accessed 7/6/2011)
Only God can give and take away life

Life is Sacred so no one has the right to take a life, this includes ones own. As a result both suicide and assisted suicide are wrong. There are many passages within the bible that speak of the idea that God has appointed a time for all to die, 'Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement:” Ecclesiastes 3:1-2, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;” Ecclesiastes 7:17, “Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?”[1] In addition to this, physicians are nowhere in Scripture given authority to take someone's life. Apart from the government in the case of capital punishment, all other human beings are given the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” Exodus 20:13 and “Thou shalt do no murder,” Matthew 19:18.[2] [1]   Pastor Art Kohl, 'The Bible Speaks on Euthanasia', Political Science and the Bible, 2002 http://www.fbbc.com/messages/kohl_political_science_euthanasia.htm  (accessed 6/6/2011) [2]   Pastor Art Kohl, 'The Bible Speaks on Euthanasia', Political Science and the Bible, 2002 http://www.fbbc.com/messages/kohl_political_science_euthanasia.htm  (accessed 6/6/2011)
It would have a damaging effect on society

Some people who do not agree with voluntary euthanasia argue that if it was legalised, it would damage the moral and social foundation of society by removing the traditional principle that man should not kill, and reduce the respect for human life. It might also be the case that once voluntary euthanasia has been legalised, this might lead to cases of involuntary euthanasia being carried out. With people deciding that someone else's life such as the elderly or the terminally ill is not worth living and therefore performing euthanasia without their consent.[1] A recent study discovered that some sufferers of locked-in syndrome – as many as three out of four of the main sample – were happy and did not want to die.[2] [1]The case against, religiouseducation.co.uik http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/alevel/ethics/euthanasia/DpFS_Agst.html  (accessed 4/6/2011). [2]Barbara Ellen, Who is to judge which lives are worth living?, guardian.co.uk, 17 April 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/17/barbara-ellen-assisted-death (accessed 6/6/2011)
Every human being has a right to life

There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Arguments from pro-life groups suggest that nearly ninety-five percent of those who kill themselves have been shown to have a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months preceding suicide. The majority suffer from depression that can be treated.[1] If they had been treated for depression as well as pain they may not have wanted to commit suicide. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral. [1]Herbert Hendin, M.D., Seduced by Death: Doctors, Patients, and Assisted Suicide (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998): 34-35.  http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/roleofdepression.pdf  (accessed 4/6/2011)
Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future agead of them

Modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but society’s role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition.
Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help

Demanding that family take part in such a decision can be an unbearable burden: many may resent a loved one’s decision to die, and would be either emotionally scared or estranged by the prospect of being in any way involved with their death. Assisted suicide also introduces a new danger, that the terminally ill may be pressured into ending their lives by others who are not prepared to support them through their illness. Even the most well regulated system would have no real way to ensure that this did not happen.
It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law.[1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide. [1]Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)
If someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them

Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate but acceptable in some circumstances – those who end their own lives are not seen as evil. It seems odd that it is a crime to assist a non-crime. The illegality of assisted suicide is therefore particularly cruel for those who are disabled by their disease, and are unable to die without assistance. For example, in March 1993 Anthony Bland had lain in persistent vegetative state for three years before a Court Order allowed his degradation and indignity to come to a merciful close.[1] It might cause unnecessary pain for people if they make an attempt at suicide themselves and subsequently fail. Rather than the pain-free methods that could be available through doctors and modern medicine. [1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 http://www.euthanasia.cc/cases.html (accessed 6/6/2011)
Only God can give and take away life

Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the almighty, that it were an encroachment on his right for men to dispose of their own life, it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction'[1]. If we accept the proposition that only God can give and take away life then medicine should not be used at all. If only God has the power to give life then medicines and surgeries to prolong people's life should also be considered wrong. It seems hypocritical to suggest that medicine can be used to prolong life but it cannot be used to end someone's life. [1]David Hume, Of Suicide, cited in Applied Ethics ed. Peter Singer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) p.23
It would have a damaging effect on society

However, the idea that we should not kill is not absolute, even for those with religious beliefs — killing in war or self-defence is justified by most. We already let people die because they are allowed to refuse treatment which could save their life, and this has not damaged anyone's respect for the worth of human life. Concerning the notion that legalised voluntary euthanasia might lead to involuntary euthanasia being carried out, there is no evidence to suggest this. As Ronald Dworkin states, 'Of course doctors know the moral difference between helping people who beg to die and killing those who want to live.'[1] [1]Ronald Dworkin, stated in The case against, available at http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/alevel/ethics/euthanasia/DpFS_Agst.html  (accessed 4/6/2011).
Every human being has a right to life

Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions.[1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James.[2]  After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die.  While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process.  The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering and tto chose the time and manner of their death. [1]Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005, http://www.assistedsuicide.org/suicide_laws.html (accessed 4/6/2011) [2]Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/oct/17/rugbyunion  (accessed 6/6/2011)
Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future agead of them

The gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to ‘control’ their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity. One particular account was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with the help of an anonymous physician committed suicide in February 1994.[1] [1]Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 http://www.euthanasia.cc/cases.html (accessed 6/6/2011)
Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help

The impact on the family who remain can be catastrophic. Often because they were unaware of how their loved one was feeling. Suicide cases such as Megan Meier, an American teenager who committed suicide by hanging herself in 2006,[1] as the parents have to launch police investigations into why their child might have felt so desperate. By legalising assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into the open. In some cases, families might have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one; being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allowing them to persuade the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of guilt and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death. [1]Wikipedia, "Suicide of Megan Meier", en.wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier (accessed 6/6/2011)
It will cause resentment and make certain communities feel targeted.

You can extend that argument to any kind of illiberal practice. The same could easily be said of practices like FGM. Choosing not to ban certain traditions just because they are culturally entrenched could be extended to anything, from slavery to torture. The fact of the matter is that some practices simply cannot be allowed. There are already cases where the police choose not to intervene in cases of domestic violence where a south Asian family is involved, giving rise to claims that they feel to timid to bring the same laws into practice for fear of infringing upon the cultural practices of minorities.[1] Furthermore, many writers like Pragna Patel[2] have claimed that the more illiberal elements of communities such as the South Asian diaspora are merely fabrications designed to oppress women. It is important not to fall into the trap of condoning practices that have no place in any society by allowing them to shelter behind the veil of ‘cultural differences.’ [1] Patel, Pragna, ‘The Use and Abuse of Honour-Based Violence in the UK,’ Open Democracy,6 June 2012 - http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/pragna-patel/use-and-abuse-of-honour-based-violence-in-uk [2] Ibid.,
The state should not be allowed to intrude in such personal matters

When the harm spills over into society, the personal becomes public. Arranged marriages do pose provable harms to the women of diaspora communities in the European Union. In such situations where vulnerable individuals are at risk, the state has a right to step in. This is already the case in other issues linked to inter-marital relations, such as the criminalisation of rape within marriage in Britain.[1]   Although the threats posed by arranged marriages are not always so clear-cut, the fact that within them they contain the potential for women to be abused and ill-treated means that state intervention is required. The harm that could arise as a result is that of continued threats to women in African and Asian ex-patriot communities across the EU. [1] ‘Guideline on rape: in marriage or by a partner,’ Rape Crisis - http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php (accessed 23 September 2012)
Individual Freedom

Even if marriages are not made absolutely mandatory, covert family pressure can still propel people into unions where they will be unhappy. This is a form of restricted liberty as the consequences of people rebelling against arranged marriages can include being forced to leave home or suffering stigmatisation and reduced contact with family members. The stigma may also be the other way with the family feeling shame when their children reject their arrangements this in turn can lead to attempts at compulsion and even some cases like that of Shafilea Ahmed murder for the rejection of the marriage.[1] Clearly there is a thin line between arranged and forced marriages. Although things like stigmatisation are harder to police than physical intimidation or violence, it is only right that the state steps in to regulate these harms, giving people the legal mandate to challenge the practice as well as to discourage relatives from attempting it from the outset. [1] Carter, Helen, ‘Shafilea Ahmed killed by parents for bringing shame on family, court hears’, guardian.co.uk, 21 May 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/21/shafilea-ahmed-murdered-parents-court
Integration and the acceptance of Western values are important

Arranged marriages have not been a part of the cultures of most European countries for many years now. Part of the reason for this is because ideas about marriage have become more progressive, with people accepting that men and women of any orientation should be allowed to choose their own partners. This was even the case during the socially conservative era of the 1950s, when it was generally accepted in countries like Britain that people would court and meet their partners independently of their parents.[1]   Arranged marriages also conform to a view of women in particular which regards them as chattel. This does not fit in with the type of egalitarianism many European countries seek to practice, and thus does not conform to Western notions of individual rights.[2] It is also hypocritical to adopt a double-standard with diaspora communities, turning a blind eye to practices which many other majority groups find reprehensible. The rights and norms of a country of block of countries such as the EU must apply to all. [1] Cook, Hera, ‘No Turning Back: Family forms and sexual mores in modern Britain,’ History & Policy - http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-17.html#traditional (accessed on 19 September 2012) [2] ‘Human Rights with Reference to Women,’ UKEssays.com - http://www.ukessays.com/essays/human-rights/human-rights-women.php (accessed on 19 September 2012)
Women in arranged marriages in Europe are disproportionately likely to suffer abuse

Arranged marriages are often different when practiced in the home countries of many immigrant families in Europe, where women often have networks of friends and relatives to rely on. The danger with allowing arranged marriages to happen in EU countries are that the women at the centre are often far more vulnerable, away from their own family, unfamiliar with the local language and fully reliant on their husband’s family. This makes it easier for domestic abuses to go undetected which is simply compounding problems of underreporting.[1] It is therefore likely that there is more domestic violence within arranged marriages.[2]   This is shown even amongst women who still consented to arranged marriages but faced abuse from their husbands – such as with the case of Razia Sodagar, whose husband abandoned her for another woman after she failed to fall pregnant.[3]   This illustrates how it is not always easy to draw a clear division between arranged marriages and forced marriages, as the former can often bear the same characteristics as the latter. It would therefore be safer to outlaw both. [1] ‘Ethnic domestic violence ‘hidden’’, BBC News, 20 September 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7004674.stm [2] Gotrik, Jennifer, ‘India domestic abuse more common in ‘arranged’ marriages’, Womennewsnetwork, 12 September 2011, http://womennewsnetwork.net/2011/09/12/india-domestic-abuse-arranged-marriages/ [3] ‘Fighting Arranged Marriage Abuse,’ BBC, 12 July 1999  - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/392619.stm
It’s impossible to police such a law.

There is simply no feasible way of enforcing laws against arranged marriages, particularly as it is almost guaranteed that many communities will continue to practice them regardless. It will be impossible to tell whether a marriage has been started by arrangement if the community and the couple are unwilling to go to the police and most will be unwilling to report their own families when practicing a cultural tradition. Those who are deeply dissatisfied and beaten may do so but in this instance the law already allows divorce and abuse is punishable by the full force of the law.  Given that forced marriages have already been outlawed and that it has been established that arranged marriages in themselves cause few provable harms, the resources of any police force would arguably be wasted on enforcing such a law; investigations would be very intrusive and labour intensive.  Furthermore, given the continuation of practices like honour killings,[1] as well as rape and domestic violence, law enforcement personnel would be better placed targeting far more heinous crimes than arranged marriages. A tangible harm could arise from the police being made to direct their energies towards such minor misdemeanours, in that there could be fewer resources available for more serious crimes. [1] ‘Europe Grapples with “Honour Killings,” DW.de - http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,1244406,00.html (accessed 17 September 2012)