Voluntary euthanasia should be legally available to terminally-ill people in the United States

Firstly, I would like to address the issue about such devices as the "Deliverence Machine". I suppose my opponent has accepted the definitions I put forth in Round 1, as he has did not challenge them. The definition of active euthanasia (which is what we are talking about) is when a patient asks their doctor to provide them with drugs that will shorten or end his or her life. Therefore, deliverence machines are not (by definition) euthanasia as no doctor is administring durgs that would shorten the life of a patient. The deliverence machine, and other devices like it, fall outside the parameters of this debate. I'd next like to ask my opponent about the Gallup poll he provided. Two polls are desribed in the article my opponent provided. He cites the first poll, in which 72% of respondents responsed 'yes' when asked a question about doctor assisted suicide. However, that poll: **Results were based on telephone interviews with 475 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 6-9, 2002. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ï¿½5%. Polling 475 people over the telephone with a 5% margin of error is a pathetic excuse for a poll. In the second poll: **Results were based on telephone interviews with 1,200 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 1997. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ï¿½3%. This poll revealed a three-way split in those who were polled. This poll was a lot more in-depth, as it allowed people to answer with more than just a 'yes' or 'no', polled 1,200 adults as opposed to 475, and had a MoE of only 3%. These two polls seem to prove two different things. The better one saying that euthanasia is an issue with has evenly split the population. My opponent is cherry-picking his evidence in hope of building a stronger case, unfortunatley the numbers just aren't there. I would next like to contend my claim that some people are incapable of killing themselves, and thus euthanasia should be an option for them. Firstly, people with physical handicapps (like quadraplegics) could simply starve to death or refuse life-saving medical treatment, which would kill them. They still have a way to die without resorting to euthanasia. Now this may sound inhumane, but I believe that this course of action in the long run upholds the santicy of life and results in less harm to society than starving quadraplegics would. If society allows intentional killing to take place, the value of ALL life is diminshed. Secondly, if we accept my opponent's arguments then his resoulution is still not affirmed, as he has only proved that people with physical handicapps which make it difficult for them to kill themselves should be able to end their lives with a doctor-assisted suicide, not every single terminally ill patient. I now have some questions for my opponents, they are not rhetorical and I would like for him to address them in the last round. 1) If euthanasia is legalized, why should it only be an option for terminally-ill patients? Why couldn't a perfectly person walk into a medical clinic and say "Hey Doc, I want you to kill me"? Does he have the right to die too? 2) Do you believe that intentionally killing diminshes the value of human life? 3) Do you believe that terminally-ill patients have the mental capacity to make such decisions regarding their mortatilty?