Euthanasia should be legalized

== Rebuttal ==(1) PainFirst, pain isn't the reason people seek euthanasia. The reason people seek euthanasia over 93% of the time is loss of autonomy. Pain is rarely (if ever) cited as a reason people seek euthanasia. [1]Second, the answer to pain isn't euthanasia. The way to deal with pain is through pain control (which is getting better each year) or through "terminal sedation." In "terminal sedation" patients in pain are put into a deep sleep until they die naturally; this is an acceptable practice that doesn't require intentional killing.Third, we shouldn't change the law based on emotions such as pity (which is effectively what Pro's appeals to pain are). An emotional response to a situation isn't inherently the correct response. Just as acts inspired by anger or jealousy are often wrong in the eyes of the law, so acts inspired by pity and compassion aren't necessarily just. Proponents of euthanasia usually bring up as many tragic cases as they possibly can because they know the immediate gut reaction benefits them. But laws shouldn't be determined by immediate gut reactions to a single case. Laws are general and need to be forward-looking; they're designed to produce the best outcomes overall. No law produces the best outcome in every case, and we have to be careful about letting our emotions play a role in determining the law.(2) AutonomyI agree with Pro that people should have the freedom to refuse medical treatment and the freedom to commit suicide. We only disagree about the freedom to be euthanized (which I argue isn't a basic right). Pro argues that euthanasia is a basic right as a matter of autonomy (i.e. self-determination). But under an autonomy principle, we'd have to honor requests to be euthanized from all competent individuals. Either we approve all acts of self-destruction on the basis of the who-are-we-to-judge principle, or we don't allow euthanasia at all. Pro's halfway euthanasia -- allowing it for the terminally ill but nobody else -- simply cannot be justified by an autonomy principle. To approve of euthanasia on the basis of autonomy necessarily extends euthanasia to all autonomosly arrived-at decisions. Thus, Pro can't justify euthanasia through autonomy, since his advocacy restricts the availability of euthanasia.(3) CostsPro says euthanasia would "reduce waiting times and improve the overall quality of care." First, apply this against Pro: with escalating medical costs, states acting as guardians of financially-burdensome persons would have incentives to euthanize. Pro says the state shouldn't encourage euthanasia, but that's precisely what it'll do, at least in effect, because of escalating medical costs. Second, justifying euthanasia on the basis of medical costs turns a moral question -- whether doctors can kill their patients? -- into an economic question. That's simply ignoring the real issue at stake in the euthanasia debate. The reality is that economic matters don't -- or at least shouldn't -- factor into moral decisions.(4) Affect on InnocentsPro says "innocents" are harmed by making euthansia illegal. But this is simply untrue. First, in the Mancini case, the Pennsylvania woman wasn't convicted of anything. Her case was actually dismissed by a judge because the prosection's case was based entirely on "speculation and guesswork." [2] Second, in the Marie Fleming case, nobody innocent was ever prosecuted. Third, there's little indication that anyone is ever prosecuted for assisted suicide or euthanasia, so Pro's fears are simply unfounded. == Equality ==(1) Death is not the same as a parking spot. Giving the disabled parking spots doesn't send a message that disabled people are expendable. It says nothing about the value of a disabled person's life. Parking spots just send a message that disabled people are disabled. That doesn't mean their life is any less valuable. By contrast, telling disabled people that doctors are legally allowed to kill them but not allowed to kill others clearly sends a message that they're expendable. And sending a message that the disabled are expendable while others aren't sends a clear message that the disabled person's life is less valuable.(2) I'm not confusing anything objective or subjective. I'm distinguishing between intrinsic value and instrumental value. I argue that equal protection of the law only applies if human life is valuable in and of itself (i.e. if human life has intrinsic value). If human life isn't valuable in and of itself, if human life is just a means for acquiring something else, then there's no reason to treat all human beings with equal respect (i.e. if human life only has instrumental value). Pro doesn't seem to understand the distinction between intrinsic value and instrumental value. It's a pretty standard distinction in moral philosophy. [3]== Unintended Consequences ==(1) Pro doesn't address the "slippery slope" arguments at all. Legalizing voluntary euthanasia leads to the legalization of non-voluntary euthanasia. The slippery slope is not just a theoretical probability -- the slippery slope is an empircal reality, proven by the Dutch experiment. Pro doesn't dispute that at all. He just says that non-voluntary euthanasia is different and therefore irrelevant. But it's not irrelevant, because it's the direct result of legalizing voluntary euthanasia, as both a theoretical and empirical matter.(2) Pro misrepresents Dutch law. In the Netherlands, doctors can kill patients without their consent. [Pro's 3] [4] [5] The conditions Pro cites are actually just the conditions necessary to avoid prosecution, even if there was an error or abuse. Furthermore, there's tons of evidence of euthanasia performed incorrectly in the Netherlands. [Pro's 3] Official Dutch surveys show a high incidence of clandestine euthanasia, suggesting that half of all killings go unreported to authorities as required by law. And in these unreported incidents, most doctors admit to not following any required protocols. [4]== Corruption ==(1) Pro suggests that euthanasia doesn't violate the Hippocratic Oath. This is what the Hippocratic Oath says: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I give advice which may cause death." If doctors can't give advice that causes death, they certainly can't euthanize their patients. The Hippocratic Oath requires that doctors heal, and it prohibits them from killing their patients.(2) Pro misunderstands my absolution point. If a patient can commit suicide, but chooses instead to have a doctor euthanize him or her, then that patient is absolved of any moral responsibility that comes from committing suicide. The doctor thus functions as a priest, taking moral responsibility for his patient's death instead of his patient. Euthanasia places doctors in a moral rather than medical role. That euthanasia requires no medical monitoring only serves to emphasize this point.(3) Pro doesn't against my point that euthanasia could disincentivize the development of better medical care. Instead, Pro challenges me to provide empirical evidence, but that mistakes the nature of my argument. I was making an analytic argument based on the laws of economics. To adequately respond, my opponent must explain why my analysis is wrong, not simply request empirical evidence. The logic for my argument is straightforward -- euthanasia is a cheap means of responding to patients suffering grave pain, so why research better medical care if euthanasia is a cheaper option? Thus, legalization disincentivizes research of better pain medicines. == Suicide ==(1) Assisted SuicideI didn't realize my opponent was arguing for assisted suicide -- the resolution said euthanasia specifically -- so I'll drop this point.(2) NecessityEven those with "locked-in" syndrome, paralyzed entirely except for eye movements, have an option of refusing food and water as long as they can communicate their wishes. The reality is that anyone can kill themselves with a little forward planning and determination. That fact makes euthanasia unnecessary. Nicklinson's case shows that there's escape from life for anyone who wants it. Furthermore, there may be a technological fix to locked-in syndrome in the future; it's important to incentivize technological advancement over euthanasia.(3) Make Deadly Drugs AvailableFirst, Pro's autonomy, compassion, and who-are-we-to-judge principles support making deadly drugs available to everyone. If someone wants to kill themselves, who are we to judge?Second, the point of making deadly drugs available is to provide a quick and painless death. That's also the point of assisted suicide, except my version is better because suicides are morally responsible for their deaths instead of doctors. There's no corruption of the medical profession, and there's no risk of abuse or mistake (i.e. involuntary euthanasia).Third, anyone can commit murder or suicide already, so there's no reason murder or suicide rates would increase. Murder is already illegal; that's enough disincentive for murder. Access to lethal drugs doesn't incentivize murder more than all the other means for murder. And access to lethal drugs also doesn't incentivize suicide; there's already ways to kill yourself available. In fact, available drugs can already be used to kill yourself. These drugs are simply more efficient at it, but that doesn't mean suicides would increase. However, I want to emphasize that my advocacy doesn't depend on making deadly drugs available. I'm simply offering two better options: (1) the status quo (where euthanasia is simply illegal), or (2) making deadly drugs available. I argue that each of these options is better than legalizing euthanasia, but I don't need to prove both to win this debate. As long as one of these options is better than euthanasia, I win the debate.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] Neil Gorsuch, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia[5] http://tinyurl.com...