BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The death of one individual has implications for others, which by definition, do not affect the suicide herself.

Even setting aside the religious concerns of many in this situation[i], there are solid secular reasons for accepting the sanctity of life. First among them is the impact it has on the survivors. The relative who does not want a loved one to take their own life, or to die in the case of euthanasia. It is simply untrue that others are not affect by the death of the individual – someone needs to support that person emotionally and someone has to administer the injection. Because of the ties of love involved for relatives, they are, in effect, left with no choice but to agree regardless of their own views, the law should respect their position as well. It further gives protection to doctors and others who would be involved in the procedure. Campaigners are keen to stress that doctors should be involved in the process whilst ignoring that, pretty much whenever they’re asked doctors say they have no desire to have any part of it[ii]. Indeed it would be against the Hippocratic oath which while it is no longer always taken still sums up the duties of a doctor which includes doing no harm and includes "And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel." So ruling out euthanasia.[iii] Presumably, the very case that is so keen on the voluntary principle would also observe this compelling rejection by a group critical to the plan. [i] Joint letter to the Telegraph. The terminally ill need care and protection – not help in committing suicide. The Most Rev Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster. Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi. [ii] Ella Pickover. Doctors Reject Assisted Suicide. The Independent. 28 June 2012. [iii] Sokol, Dr Daniel, ‘A guide to the Hippocratic Oath’, BBC News, 26 October 2008,
Suicide is a rational choice in many situations.

It is the mark of a civilised society that we accept the inconvenience of laws in some circumstances because we also require their protection in others. To take a trivial example we take away the choice for people to drive on the other side of the road to everyone else. Here the protection offered by a full moratorium on killing requires that we accept all of its implications. The challenge is to use medical science to make it a moot point. Proposition has therefore made a powerful argument in favour of better painkillers and more research into mentally debilitating illnesses. Many of those developments have come about as a result of the very human attributes prop is so keen to cite. Realising that they have an opportunity of future free of pain and illness, humans have found ways of delivering it. It is precisely because death can now be managed that the process of self-imposed triage prop suggests is increasingly unnecessary; a fact to be applauded, not discarded
Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that.

This conveniently ignores that patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) do recover. It also ignore that Alzheimer’s patients enjoy moments of lucidity that bring pleasure to both themselves and their friends and relatives. It also discounts the possibilities offered by advances in medical science. The one point in any of the processes that is irreversible is the point of death – in the event of a misdiagnosis or the creation of a new drug, it’s too late if the person is already dead.
The decision to die is a deeply personal one - it is no business of the state.

Society routinely accepts that the state has a role in balancing the desires of some with the threats those pose to others. For every reasoned, unpressured decision that can be presented by prop, we can offer a situation in which the decision to die was coerced, or at least was not devoid of financial of self-serving interests on the part of others. The only way to prevent those negative outcomes is to deny the palatable ones through a complete moratorium. Such actions may not become routine yet even one death through compulsion is too many. However it is equally likely that once a right to die becomes established it comes to be seen as normal that someone who is particularly ill or frail will exercise the right to die. Once this is normalised then it becomes easier and easier for the boundary to slowly slip as it is an arbitrary line, either those exercising the right slowly become less and less ill or frail. Alternatively there is a slide into coercion as it becomes normal it begins to be seen as expected that the right will be exercised.[i] [i] Young, Robert, "Voluntary Euthanasia", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
It is impossible to frame a structure which respects the right to die for the individual but that cannot be abused by others.

The issue that Op highlights is the matter of intention, that the courts should not be interested in why someone took the decision to kill another person. However, that does not apply here as the intention is that of the person who has chosen to die. In a majority of nations suicide is already legal – the most spectacular exception to this being North Korea, a country with, otherwise, a fairly relaxed approach to the deaths of its citizens. Accepting the right to die simply extends the ability to do so to those who currently are incapable of performing the necessary procedure themselves[i]. [i] BBC News Website. Right-to-die law appalling, says Health Minister Anna Soubry. 8 September 2012.
It specifically denies a rich cultural heritage which is uniquely American of groups that spoke English but not as a first language

Almost no one in the United States knows English, but then chooses not to use it to make some sort of political statement. The language is far too omnipresent in the economy, culture, and everyday life to make such a choice attractive or even sane. Nor do people generally choose not to learn English. The advantages and opportunities it opens up, and the stigmas and discrimination facing non-English speakers mean that learning English is one of the first things any immigrant is going to try and do. In reality therefore we are going to be talking about people who can’t speak English, either because they have not learned it yet, or because they can’t learn it. Perhaps they don’t have the time between working two jobs, or perhaps they find it difficult. In any case, if this policy is simply symbolic it will stigmatize these people. If it goes further, it will actively make their lives worse, and perhaps make it even harder for them to learn English.
Even within the United States people speak English differently

Even within the United States people speak many different dialects. From Boston to New York to the rural South, accents and diversity within the English language express the exact same types of historical, cultural, and even political traditions that those pushing English find so horrifying if made in another language. It would be hard to set a standard for what is English, and ignore the fact that Americans have long used linguistic differences as a sign of identity. It therefore makes no sense to try to paper over these linguistic differences by imposing English as an official language; rather the diversity of languages and dialects should be celebrated.
The US has a long tradition of multiple languages

There is a long historical tradition in the United States to which different languages contributed. Most Americans do not have ancestors who arrived from England prior to 1776, and even among the colonists before independence there were Frenchman, Dutch, Swedes, Scots and Irish.[1] The languages of these early immigrants remain, for example Cajun, an offshoot of French remains a de facto official language in Louisiana.[2] The historical importance of Native American languages or of the immigrants who came in and contributed so much is also ignored. All of these groups are stigmatized and their contributions ignored. The descendants of most of the groups listed above speak English today, so the issue is not an ease of access one. It is however one of historical justice and giving full recognition to the full-range of contributors to American history. [1] ‘Ethnic Composition of the Thirteen Colonies, 1750’, teacher’s Brunch, http://www.sjusd.org/sites/high/WillowGlenHigh/Teachers/documents/Ethnic... [2] Melancon, Megan, ‘Cajun English’, PBS, http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/cajun/
The Identity and History of the United States are intrinsically linked to the English Language

English is the de facto official language of the United States already and that is not under threat at this time. There is no prospect of it being replaced with Swahili and of children three generations in the future being unable to read the declaration of independence. As a consequence the major impacts of this move will be symbolic.  First of all, it will enshrine and endorse the idea that the true Americans were the first Americans, that the English colonists who arrived on the continent speaking the language already were the only real Americans, and that everyone who arrived later is an American by integration. Not only is this untrue – the Dutch settled New York[1] – but it also places a stigma on that integration. By tying American identity to the British colony the United States was rather than the ideals the nation was founded on, the government would adopting an exclusive definition that in some ways goes against those ideals, including for instance, the inclusion in the US constitution that anyone born within the territory of the United States would automatically be a citizen. [1] New Netherlands Project, ‘New Amsterdam’, http://www.nnp.org/vtour/regions/Manhattan/new-amsterdam.html
Bilingual Education is expensive and encourages balkanization

Bilingual education is exactly that – bilingual. Students do not simply abandon the English language – they intensively study it. The only bilingual classes are provided in other fields such as math and science - subjects critical for future employment to ensure they do not fall top far behind. On the contrary, while immersion may teach English better, there is a lot of evidence that it tends to increase drop-out rates substantially,[1] indicating that for a number of students it is in fact less effective since it is hard to learn anything in school if you don’t attend. Even those who don’t drop out tend to fall substantially behind, hurting their educational efforts, and undermining their position in the workplace. A mathematician or scientist does not need perfect English – they do need good grades in other courses. [1] Vaznis, James, ‘Boston students struggle with English-only rule’, boston.com, 7 April 2009, http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2009/04/07/boston_stu...
Avoids self-segregation

English-only policies are not about encouraging acceptance of diversity, and to the extent they are about bringing people together it is by forcing immigrants to abandon their culture. From the very beginning of the English-only movement during the First World War, when anti-German sentiment led to attacks on German-speaking immigrants, the idea of English as a an official language has been brought up to stigmatize immigrants.[1] The very debate over the implementation of the policy would do more to stigmatize immigrants than could be made up for by any benefits it could provide. It may well be that forcing Immigrants to speak English and work in it would help them to assimilate but so would deporting them across the country where they would be forced to sink or swim. We don’t do that because it would be wrong. Secondly, all of the government’s benefits are based on the assumption that individuals can learn English quickly if they are forced to do so. But learning languages is a long process, and the government’s policies would leave large numbers of people worse off before they managed to pick up the language, assuming they ever did. [1] Opposing views, ‘English-Only Laws Are Offensive to Our Nation’s Cherished Diversity’, 2010, http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/english-only-laws-are-offensive-t...
Bilingual education hurts students

The segregation of students in this case is not a function of their language skills, but of their lack thereof. Simply placing non-English speakers in a normal school will not suddenly make them friends with everyone, especially if they cannot communicate. If there are other speakers of their language, they will likely form a separate social group with those students, speaking their home language among themselves, which will undermine efforts to teach them English. At the same time they will likely do poorly in school as they will struggle to comprehend the content of their classes.[1] If other ESL students don’t exist, they will likely become socially isolated, with all the negative results this can potentially lead to such as depression or even in extreme cases suicide. [1] Vaznis, James, ‘Boston students struggle with English-only rule’, boston.com, 7 April 2009, http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2009/04/07/boston_stu...
In the current environment, moves to make English the official language are specifically targeted at Hispanic immigrants

It may well be that some people backing the push to make English the official language have questionable motives, but the movement should be evaluated based on its results. Right now Hispanics are already stigmatized, whether on one hand as temporary labourers unable to speak English and therefore destined for the worst jobs, or as an invading horde planning to conquer the United States. For better or worse, the self-segregation of the community reinforces many of these beliefs, while it also prevents their kids from learning English. If this policy helps to break this self-segregation up, and the children of Hispanic Immigrants become as American as the children of German immigrants became in the early 20th century then their opportunities will be greatly increased.
It specifically denies a rich cultural heritage which is uniquely American of groups that spoke English but not as a first language

This policy does not stigmatize people who cannot speak English. It rather affirms the hard work of those who have. There are numerous stories of how proud immigrants have been to take their citizenship test, and by strengthening the idea of identity it makes it more meaningful. Secondly, if money is redirected from bilingual education to providing individual tutoring, it may well help individuals who have trouble learning English in a class environment. It has never been suggested that the government has no role to play in helping people learn English.
The US has a long tradition of multiple languages

England today owes much to Roman settlers, and for nearly four centuries it was governed by a French speaking nobility – yet this is not a reason for Britain to have either French or Latin as official languages. The fact is that we can recognize that all Americans today speak English, while also recognizing that their parents, grandparents, and great-grand-parents may not have. In fact that is exactly what making English the official language will recognize, the role English has played in bringing people together and creating a national identity by making these people Americans.
The Identity and History of the United States are intrinsically linked to the English Language

From its very founding, English was the common language of the United States, and full participation in the national life was dependent on the ability to speak it. Theodore Roosevelt himself once noted that "We have one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the [assimilation] crucible turns our people out as Americans”[1] Declaring English as the official language will give legal force to this history, and help provide unity to Americans at a time when many come from different backgrounds and hold different political views. Furthermore, it will help immigrants with the process of assimilation. Rather than simply learning English for pragmatic reasons, the act of learning English will tie immigrants into a political and historical tradition going back to Thomas Jefferson. [1] Opposing Views, ‘Linguistic Unity Is Critical in an Increasingly Diverse Society’, 2010, http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/linguistic-unity-is-critical-in-a...
Bilingual Education is expensive and encourages balkanization

One of the goals of the government in providing education is to prepare students for success in the work place, and therefore the government has an obligation to spend its money in the most efficient way possible to accomplish this.  This is relevant because Bilingual education is expensive, requiring the hiring of bilingual teachers, the organization of bilingual classes, and the acquisition of bilingual curriculum materials.[1] These costs might be justified if they actually helped students. But the reality is that they do not. For one thing, they allow students to get by without learning English. One of the great obstacles to learning a new language is the fact that parents of students may well speak another language at home. If students suddenly use that language at school as well, they will spend the vast majority of their day speaking a language other than English, with the consequence that they may not pick it up at all, and find themselves at a large disadvantage when they attempt to join the workforce. As a consequence, it seems likely that the money could be better used subsidizing tutoring for students learning English than running an entirely separate and parallel educational system. [1] Rossell, Christine, ‘Does Bilingual Education Work? The Case of Texas’, Texas Public Policy Foundation, September 2009, http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2009-09-RR01-bilingual-rossell.pdf
Avoids self-segregation

In a time when the US has begun to overcome racial segregation, and legal discrimination in other fields, one of the great challenges it faces is self-segregation. Linguistic diversity worsens these problems because it inevitably leads to self-segregation. All things being equal, and even if they are not, people like to be around people they can communicate with. This was not a huge problem in years past when most immigrant groups were small enough to be easily swallowed, and too small to maintain their linguistic unity, but the Hispanic population in the United States has grown at such a rate, that it is possible to get by with Spanish in many major US cities. Restaurants, businesses and services all exist which cater to it, and there is an entire industry of Spanish language television available. This in turn makes the risk of social balkanization much stronger. While a small minority of people may learn new languages because they want to, the vast majority learn them when they have to – and if individuals can get by without doing so, it’s likely that they will not. Rather than assimilation, you will have a divergence between the linguistic minority and the majority.
Bilingual education hurts students

Bilingual education segregates students in its system from those outside it. This limits the opportunities for interaction. This is harmful in a number of ways. For one thing, it limits their interaction with peers who will speak English. While it’s possible they may practice English with their friends in a bilingual school, it seems unlikely, as it would be easier to talk in the existing language. Furthermore, it also limits the exposure of English-speaking students to immigrants who don’t speak English, allowing negative stereotypes to arise out of ignorance that then can influence governmental policy through the ballot box. Finally, this segregation may extend to within bilingual schools themselves, since not everyone seeking bilingual education has the same non-English language. The result might well be that students would group socially into groups based on country of origin, and due to simple demographics this would place the Spanish-speaking students at a significant advantage as there are nearly 30 million of them in the country. This polarization in turn could lead to splits between minority language groups that could reduce their overall social capital.
In the current environment, moves to make English the official language are specifically targeted at Hispanic immigrants

Historically, efforts to declare English the official language tend to come up when certain elements in the American body politic become threatened. It became an issue in the First World War, when resentment rose against German immigrants, and the present movement, though nominally not signalling anyone out, is clearly aimed at Hispanics. This can be inferred from the fact that they are by far the largest non-English linguistic group in the country, and on occasion such views have been let slip, as the leader of one of the largest lobbying groups for a National Language did.[1] Even if such legislation is not aimed specifically at Hispanics, everyone will assume that it is, and many Hispanics will nevertheless believe that they are the intended targets. The practical result of this will be the alienation of the Hispanic population as many Hispanics see themselves under attack, which will cause many Hispanics to concentrate together, undermining many of the arguments for assimilation the government has made. Furthermore, to the extent it stigmatizes Spanish speakers as the ‘other’, it may well encourage bullying against Hispanic students, and discrimination against those who can’t speak English, who are a far larger group than those who chose not to speak it. [1] ‘English Only Movement FAQ File’, Mass. English Plus, http://www.massenglishplus.org/content/Language_Rights/English-Only_Move...
Moving is an imperative

Unlike the Maldives or Kiribati the Seychelles will still have a small amount of land.[1] The government could establish a permanent outpost even if it does have difficulties with water supplies. The Seychelles would therefore be able to maintain sovereignty through this outpost much as mounting bases on small islets around the world provide sovereignty without acquiring new territories elsewhere. [1] Conan, 2010, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130049417
Shared sovereignty

Shared sovereignty is likely to create problems in the future. No state wants to have another state controlling some aspects of its sovereignty and any deal the Seychelles entered into would be an unequal one as the Seychelles would both be much smaller and be the state asking for help. If the host state for example maintained control over national defense what would there be to stop that country essentially mounting a takeover of the Seychelles new territory in the future?
Other states would not want to waste resources on a refugee state

The cost need not be borne by the state from which they Seychelles is given land; rather it could come from the funds that have been set up to help developing nations adapt to climate change such as the Adaptation Fund and the Green Climate Fund.[1] This would mean the money would be coming from developed countries that can easily afford the costs of helping rebuild the lives of 90,000 people not the country that provides the territory. [1] ‘Finance’, unfccc.inc, accessed 26/2/2014, https://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/items/2807.php