Euthanasia should be legal

Rebuttals:1. "Patients are giong to die soon..."This argument is unconvincing. Voluntary euthanasia damages societal views of the sanctity of life and often times allows people to choose death who would live. Also, it forwards the idea that some people's lives are worth more than others. If doctor's can legally take one life, that assumes the other life is worth more. Likewise, doctors often misdiagnose, at an alarming rate of 10 to 20% [1] This means that patients could possibly live much longer, but instead are killed. Especially given the abuse of euthanasia, it is a terrible policy that gives way to unwarranted killing.2. "People have the right to die..."This argument validates all sorts of problems in the world. If we hold "the right to die" that validates suicide, which plagues families at an awful level. The medical field is also advancing at an exceptional rate, and reducing the pain patients undergo.3. "Putting a person in pain..."These arguments really all sound the same. Refer to my rebuttals above.My arguments:1. My opponent's response to the first argument is very flawed. The argument is not that euthanasia is illegal, but that the procedure itself is being abused. So while euthanasia is already legal, it is being performed in a way that is illegal and lends itself to wrongful killings. [2] Furthermore, legalizing something doesn't by virtue make it right. Abuse will still happen. Also, the other arguments I presented in regard to abuse were also done WHILE euthanasia was legal. So, it doesn't matter the legality of euthanasia, the policy itself is failed and renders recurring abuse, harming patients and undermining the integrity of the health system.2. My opponent drops the argument made about the cases being done without consent. Her solution also doesn't apply because if they don't GIVE consent, it cannot be recorded. This argument is entirely dropped by my opponent, and stands for my side. What we have is a policy which leads to killings without the consent or request of the patient -- essentially becoming nothing short of murder.3. This rebuttal misses the point. The objective of a doctor is to keep the patient safe. The Hippocratic Oath, I would remind everyone, states: "I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect." [3] So, regardless of the legality of a policy, it undermines the core duty of the doctor. 4. "People who want euthanasia..."Like the others I have already addressed, this argument is weak, and counterbalanced by the fact that legality of euthanasia leads to people who DON'T want to be killed being killed. If a person wants to kill themself, that is their own option. However, they should not be allowed to have others, whose intention is to help them, do it for them. Otherwise, they will die naturally. Furthermore, it is not in the best interest of the health system to have such an abusive policy in place that leads to wrongful killings and undermines the very core duty of doctors.Conclusion:Since my opponent has dropped the majority of my arguments, or not directly addressed them, my case stands. I have addressed my opponent's arguments and refuted them. Vote con.Sources:[1] http://www.ncpa.org...[2] http://www.cmaj.ca...[3] http://www.newsweek.com...