Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice

I would like to the Pro for the intriguing debate that has taken place here. I truly wish every debate could be this enjoyable. Whatever the result, you are a good debater and worthy of any opponents' respect. R1) Right to death First off, though, I have not ignored pro's logic in deciding whether or not there is a right to death. I simply replied by saying that it is not mentioned anywhere in legal document, whereas the right to life most certainly is. Though there is death in every person's life, that does not make it an equal right. Pro asserts that "Since my life is my own property, I am free to discard it, just as I am free to discard my own material property." This statement is false. Pro is comparing apples to oranges here. He is basically saying that life and material possession should be treated in the same manner. According to legal standards, this is not the case. Life is of the utmost importance, and it cannot simply be purposefully discarded. No place mentions a right to death; not one! R2) Legality of Euthanasia I am simply saying that someone (like you) could argue that it is promoting well-being. However, you would be false in arguing that. It is an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution, but still an interpretation nonetheless. I never said that it was the correct view, or a viable one at that. R3) Declaration of Independence Unfortunately pro seems very ignorant to legal workings and backbones of a governmental structure. The Declaration of Independence has a currently ambiguous status as to its legal authority. By claiming it has none, pro is making an erroneous and unwarranted assumption. At the very least, it is used for historical reference, which is what engendered the Constitution in the first place. The wording is very irrelevant in the point I was trying to make. The only difference in what was quoted and what is actually in the document is "pursuing" life. However, since we have these certain unalienable rights, it definitely means that we should be able to pursue. Pro seems slightly desperate to find an error here. R4) United States Specifics While pro is correct in that I based that argument around the United States, I was simply using that as an example to why Euthanasia could be legal here. It was implied that other countries also have similar laws against euthanasia, and thus in order for them to legalize it, stare decisis would have to be overturned. That is a difficult process. R5) Natural Process of Death Pro doesn't seem to understand that the majority of euthanasias are called for by people who have many more months (sometimes years) of life yet. Killing them by lethal injection is certainly hindering the natural process and cycle of death. Please note that I never implied anything about persevering their life. I do not necessarily believe that to be fine either. Therefore, pro's logical for this argument is flawed and built on erroneous assumptions yet again. R6) Intrusion of Rights? In order for this argument to be valid, pro must show these "contradictory moral arguments and fallacious appeals to authority" that I have been making. And, pro seems to be forgetting the many benefits that "banning euthanasia" does have. Granted, as I pointed out earlier, the word "banning" is not correct in this case, since it is not established globally to begin with. In the end, every single one of pro's arguments and assertions have been refuted and accounted for. Again, I want to thank pro for a great debate. However, I urge a con vote, because I have successfully stated why euthanasia should not be legalized and supported those arguments soundly. Thank you.