Euthanasia should not be legalized.

Well argued. To the first point, I would ask if all people do (or should) have the freedom to live and die as they please. They certainly do not have the freedom to live as they please if they are breaking the law. We are not "free" in the selfish sense of the word (and never have been), but only free to recognize the social contract which has been forged for our benefit through centuries of trial and error. We may choose to reject the duties that bind us to that contract, but then we also may find that true freedom requires duty and thoughtfulness toward others. There is a growing myth which young people love, called "Personal bodily autonomy." The idea that what they do to themselves is no one's business but their own, and that the emotional or indirect pain their decisions cause to others is trumped by the supposed nobleness of their mandate to only harm themselves. Casual drug users (especially those whose drugs are obtained by association with violent criminals) are a shining example of this phenomenon. The argument can extend to suicide. A depressed teenager who destroys his family by ending his life over what he may have one day come to understand as a trivial issue should not be granted an admission of "bodily autonomy" for his ill-considered decision. There is no reason to believe that medically assisted "suicide watches" for those who have tried to harm themselves is an infringement on their freedom. Society has a vested interest in the value of each human life, in order to carry on the next generation. Yet more and more we are told of the virtue of autonomy; that the future of politicking is in defending the rights of citizens to pursue their own pleasures, desires, and whims at any cost, save the "direct" physical harm of others. The circumstance of the teenager is of course much different than that of the one who suffers pain in illness, but it is an important to bypass the notion that by sherry picking John Stuart Mill we can convince ourselves that we are totally free in our own bodies. Our society does allow ingratitude and selfishness to take precedence over participation, but these choices should not be held up as virtue. As for my opponent's thoughts on autonomy and involuntary euthanasia, I ask: who gets to decide the criteria of personhood? Is it the medical doctors whose evaluation procedures are based on a continuum of change, dependent on fresh scientific data? Ethical "experts" who grant themselves the status of philosopher kings? If there were truly such thing as an ethical expert, we would have no choice but to consider that person a god. The notion that anyone can claim such a position is appalling. My opponent claims that the system is secured with impediments to protect the vulnerable, while at the same time arguing that people "so" terminally ill that they will die, have no legal right to life. This is the exact sort of language that will make the change in these laws so incredibly dangerous, because it already assumes that human life loses value in unconsciousness, and loses all value when unconsciousness is the preamble to death. These terms are based in utility and function, and they forego any thought of unalterable human value. My argument is not for the perpetuation of torture, or to deny that people can suffer terribly in their last days, weeks, or months, but against the idea that we should trust in a bureaucracy to organize the implementation of "compassionate killing." Once an old law is destroyed it is nearly impossible to reconstruct, and the new law becomes easier to expand and undermine. Already we are seeing the laws being bent, reshaped or broken in Belgium, where nearly one third of euthanasia procedures in Flanders are happening without the patient"s consent (1). In fact, one out of every two cases of euthanasia are not even reported to a control committee (2). The laws are expanding rapidly in countries that also promised a secure and discretionary vision of assisted suicide. The latest change has been the movement to allow voluntary child euthanasia, (3) The point is, is that there is always a claim in political arguments about the rights of the individual in matters of life and death that the procedures used for termination will only be used sparingly and for a select few who have been screened to meet proper ethical guidelines. But as always happens when powerful lobbies push for radical changes in law, the momentum never ceases, the laws expand, and it becomes harder to contain the things they claimed they could control. The argument in favour of voluntary euthanasia is much stronger as it is hard to argue that forcing someone to suffer unimaginable pain is a morally sound option. But nevertheless, I'm unconvinced that anyone is actually being forced to endure suffering. There is a distinction between refusing medical care, (which is perfectly legal), and having another human kill you out of mercy. I don't think it's a fair assertion to say that doctors who refuse to kill their sick patients are guilty of torture. All measures are taken in palliative care to ensure the minimization of pain. If a patient wants to refuse life support, it is illegal for the doctor to ignore the request because that in fact would be forcing an extended and unwanted lifespan onto that person. He or she must adhere to the wishes of the patient so long as they perform no action that leads to an unnatural death. So, again, there is no legal mandate that forces suffering upon the sick. Illness and suffering are natural phenomenon that we all endure, and to deem this reality as the moral equivalent of torture is wrong. It will create a culture of fraudulent ethical guilt in the medical establishment, and as all new ideas become easier with repetition, the old morality will fade, and the killing of "unsalable" humans will become routine. In other words, "The doctor will not kill me, therefore he is torturing me," is a non-logical statement. The doctor does not inflict pain upon you, it is only the nature of your own biology and evolution. This is not to say that there shouldn't be a discussion about the brutality that illness can cause, and whether there are viable options to end that suffering in extreme cases, but it cannot be said that any human is torturing another human by doing nothing to them. Finally, this brings me to the point my opponent made about fear mongering. The claim that allowing euthanasia will create a social death spiral of murder-hungry citizens is indeed an exaggeration. But not on my part. I don't know who argues that such an openly apocalyptic scenario would unfold, but it's certainly a great satirical distraction from the quiet and slippery way that it actually would. Humans have an uncanny ability to lie to themselves, and most of us do not ponder morality in our day to day decision making. It's much easier to assume we are doing the right thing without examining ourselves thoroughly and logically. It is one thing to say that you feel the pain another endures, and quite another to actually feel it. It seems to me that taking on the decision whether to kill someone you are supposed to love is no small task, and would require more than just the liberty of the state to allow you to go ahead and do such a thing. What if you were wrong? What if in your heart you were just beaten down and tired, and you clutched onto that word "compassion" in order to convince yourself that what you were doing was morally acceptable? I don't know that it is so easy to assume that your intentions are sincere enough to warrant the killing of another. I do know that just because someone is your close relative, it does not guarantee they have your best interests at heart. Family members commit heinous acts against one another all the time. The users of this legislation will not all be humane people as we are led to believe. This law will open the door for every member of society. Even the heartless. Thank you.