voulentary euthanisa should be legal

I'm glad to see my opponent feeling better. I'm afraid, however, his quick turn around may prove inadequate in defending his position. ----> "my opponent claims that , doctors are bound by oath and are forbidden to kill." Actually, I cited a group of doctors that do not wish to kill under any circumstances for purposes of example. These kinds of doctors would lose freedoms should euthanasia become a protected right. ----> "However I remember watching a video on doctors in Holland who do euthanizes patients. The doctor said , " If I treat a patient with a broken arm , I will give him something to ease the pain first. Then I will give him a cast to help it heal the arm ". This doctor is implying that , this is not just killing , it is an act of mercy ." I am well aware that some doctors do wish to kill in mercy. This, however, does not refute my contention that doctors who refuse to kill--either by religious or personal convictions--would be losing freedoms in order that terminally ill patients can require someone else to kill them. ----> "People are born with the right to be protected from suffering and pain , terminal diseases cause suffering and pain. Therefore if a person is suffering and in pain that person has the right to stop this suffering and pain." Indeed, and without legalizing euthanasia, that right still exists. Legalizing euthanasia only legalizes HOW one may stop pain and suffering. ----> "The mental impact is nothing , my opponent claims what about the thought off having to end someone's life is to much mental trauma" I have little concern for the trauma of the person administering the suicide. My point was that an appeal to emotion cannot adequately defend the legalization of euthanasia. I was speaking to the emotional trauma faced by loved ones, to which my opponent was appealing his case. In essence, my opponent is in favor of legalizing euthanasia so that patients can escape physical pain and people like my opponent can escape emotional pain. ----> "however the system I want in place requires nobody to kill the patient , a suicide machine , If you want to commit suicide you must travel to Switzerland or elsewhere and must drink and toxic cocktail and lift it by yourself in order for this to be a legal suicide." This idea places my opponent into a logical contradiction. If the thought of physically suffering patients is so sad as to render it a fundamental right, then the thought of emotionally suffering parents that just lost their depressed teenage daughter to a suicide machine ought to render it illegal. My opponent cannot have it both ways. ----> "We must not allow "pen pushers " and judges to decide how the last moments off the terminally ill are carried out." And we must certainly not allow emotional appeals to grant entitlement rights to a group of people that already have a reasonable alternative. Terminally ill patients are well within their rights to kill themselves without transferring this burden to others. ---------- I would pat my opponent's back for his compassion towards people doomed to suffer from a terminal illness if it weren't for his blatant disregard for those that would be emotionally burdened to kill the people they swore to heal. My opponent has not thought through his position, and he certainly has done very little to refute my contentions. My following contentions throughout this debate remain unanswered: 1. Terminal illness is ambiguous, so choosing who can be killed and who can't is arbitrary. Note that my opponent never offered more concrete criteria. 2. Asking someone else to kill you is immoral. My opponent never addressed the fact that claiming ownership of life while denying ownership of death is hypocrisy of the highest degree. 3. Legalizing euthanasia unnecessarily transfers rights. Why should the state protect a right that already exists in a more limited form? Should hospitals be forced to offer suicide doctors--or worse--machines? Should insurance companies be obligated to pay for such procedures? My opponent has not offered any evidence beyond opinion that assisted suicide is a right. Given that my opponent has not responded to my contentions and his contentions have been met with vigorous response, I respectfully ask the readers to vote in negation of the resolution. Voluntary euthanasia should not be legal.