Euthanasia

Ok, really? The first constructive speech matters but I mean refutations, in the first speech you can't refute. If I had copied pasted to refute you than that would be bad. 1) \\\Taking someone's life with their consent is like hiring a man to shoot them because they are chronically depressed. Some patients who want to go through the procedure of euthanasia don't know what they're doing ï¿½€" ending something that cannot be reversed. You may argue that euthanasia is painless, but assisted suicide and euthanasia have the same purpose ï¿½€" to kill. If you say that euthanasia is not suicide, then euthanasia is murder/// I see what you're getting at, but the difference between suicide and euthanasia is that someone who wants to be Euthanized is going through the most painful disease, they have no choice, it's either die now painlessly, or die later painfully. A suicidal person asking to be euthanized is wrong because they might rethink their life the next day, but a person with an incurable illness cannot rethink their life the next day. That is my point here 2) \\\your point of the European Declaration of Independence has been contradicted. Therefore, it is your point that is down, Rockylightning, not mine./// I fail to see how the Euopean Declaration of Independence contradicts me. This debate is about the topic of Euthinasia, not what Declarations of Independence we are talking about, I just said that it we should not confine this debate to America, but rather a more generall debate on the topic itself. 3) \\\I understand your point. However, we cannot end extreme misery because the law says so. If you were suicidal, the law would not allow you to go to your therapist and ask for a drug that will to put you to death. There is a borderline between what the law can't control and can; allowing many to take away their own lives just because they want to is crossing the line. The government makes choices to protect our citizens, not to end their lives due to the desire of it./// You keep on bringing up suicidal people when the debate is about strictly people with incurable, painful diseases! Of course the law would not allow you to go and ask your therapist for drugs because you are not facing certain death! You have a future, the people dying from incurable diseases don't. Maybe they just want to get it over with so they aren't full of pain for the small portion of their lives that is the future. 4) \\A right to death cancels out a right to live, and the right to live is definitely beyond doubt more important than the right to death. This world would be going through human species genocide if there were a right to death.// If we have a right to life, then we should have a right to death! We can choose to live, but not choose to die? If we truly live in a free country than people under the circumstances in the definition should have the right to death! 4a) \\\palliative care allows a patient to stop feeling the pain and feel more comfortable or less scared. Palliative care is NEVER a procedure intended to end a patient's life, rather to make it more peaceful.// I agree with this point, but why would you want to live the short rest of your life drugged up? Wouldn't you want to say your last goodbyes then exit from your painful world? If I was in that position I wouldn't have liked to be drugged, then die, I would like to know that I'm my sane old self when I die, not on a drug high. For these reasons, the motion "Euthanasia, a painless death that includes passive and active forms, is justified for a patient with a disease that inflicts extreme amounts of pain and is incurable" stands. VOTE PRO! ----------------Sources http://www.time.com...... http://www.euthanasiaprocon.org...... http://www.dignityindying.org.uk...... http://euthanasia.procon.org...... http://euthanasia.procon.org......