We should help those who want to commit suicide

I would like to first Rebuttal my opponent's statements, and then provide a concise conclusion for this debate.To begin, I would like to clarify to my opponent that I didn't misunderstood nothing. In fact, it was me mainly doing Rebuttals against my opponents statements, which I will do again in this round. To begin, in the previous round I stated "The person themselves have the right to commit suicide, but is not a right to force someone else to help them cause suicide". My opponent says that he or she did not state this, and I know they didn't but I would like to refer back to my previous argument. In my previous argument, I stated that the definition of "dominion" is: "Ownership, or right to property". It is the individuals body who can determine if they want to commit suicide or not, but saying that its the ownership of their body and should ask others to help them commit suicide is wrong. Why should others get involved in being forced to help that person commit suicide.Also, voters, my opponent contradicts his own argument with the following quote in this round. He said: "Not once in my argument have I said anything about the "forced" assist of suicide". My opponent is making a false accusation because in the previous round, he said people should be required to help the person cause suicide. Given the quote: "Instead, we should help them carry out their death". That statement is more souding like a requirement, than a choice; which makes my opponents argument null.Then my opponent attempts to Rebuttal against my Bill of Rights argument. In the previous round, I quoted, from the Bill of Rights: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property". No state shall take life away, so this flaws my opponents argument. My opponent argues back about that also applying to "murder", but the exact statement from the Bill of Rights does not specify murder either. It just specifies "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life". The taking of life, in this case, can be applied to many aspects that involve taking someones life; even assisted suicide. And with assisted suicide, breaks this idea of an amendement.For my opponents next statement, let me please put this in italics to see the ridiculous content my opponent has stated which contradicts his own argument.My opponent then goes on to attempt to disprove my evidently sustained argument. They claim that there is no a safe way to commit suicide and that "There is nothing safe about that [suicide], when one kills themselves; they do any means of measure to get the job done." But where is a source that proves this?There are many sources that show that the most commonly chosen suicide methods are hanging/suffocation and poisoning [5] which disproves my opponent's argument that "they do any means to get the job done."and shows a selective correlation in the ways people commit suicide.As well as this, there are quite obviously more safe ways to commit suicide. Is Con saying that jumping off a bridge onto a busy road is safer than physician-assisted suicide in a controlled area?First off, there is truly no "safe" way of commiting suicide because it is death. When someone wants to kill themself, there is no safe way of doing it. My opponent asks for a source, and ironically enough; gave a source that I can use (1). The lists of ideas on how suicide can be done, without assistance mind you and stated by my opponent, include: "Hanging/Suffocation and Poisoning". Then my opponent continues on saying that my argument about "getting the job done" false, yet my opponent provided examples on how someone can get the job done. Go to Home Depot and you can get poison, rope, or even a garden hose. In reality, anything can be used to kill yourself if done right. If people have access to these type of utensils, why should we assist in helping with suicide? They are fine on their own, and referring back to my previous argument; if they do assist, that is actually putting harm on the person helping commit the suicide than victim. That is truly a more human right, than helping someone who just wants to end their life. Once more, who has more rights the potential victim, or someone who will be psychologically harmed for the rest of their life?Continuing on with my opponents statement, he also brings up the point of is it safe for someone to jump off a bridge? I will agree its not safe, but you just admitted other alternatives on how the individual can cause suicide to themselves. In fact, those are more safer than having another individual do the action; causing psychological harm toweards them.Con continues with "What damage will occur if the person is dead? He or she will have no life, and wouldn't suffer any damage except taking his or her own life."I can quickly push this argument aside with the quite blatant fact that damage is extremely likely to occur in a suicidal incident. [6] Does a person who jumps off a cliff receive no bodily damage?My opponent enlightens me because he claims that damage occurs to the individual. Really? Are you serious? When someone is trying to kill themselves, there will be damage and thats the persons decision, which Pro agrees about it being their decision with the term "Dominion". If its their decision, let them take the damage they are going to cause to themselves; but don't force others to do it for you. Then my opponent quotes, after this statement, "Why hurt others in the process rather than keeping it in a conditioned area". You are hurting others by causing psychological damage to the person helping commit suicide. That isn't safe, but more dangerous.Then my opponent accuses me of not using a source. At this point voters, Pro has broken the ethics of debate by providing false accusations on my own sources just to try to win a debate. In fact, I actually posted the sources blantly in the simlar way as my opponent did in this round. And I'll post the source again (2), in which my opponent lies.Finally, my opponent claims that there was no evidence about physicians suffering harm from assisting suicide. Once more, I did in the previous round and yet my opponent argues I didn't (3). Voters, check the last round and see my sources. They are legitimate, and do support my argument; my opponent is just breaking some ethics. Anyways, my opponent brings statistics saying that physicians don't have psychological pain, or if they do; its very minimal. I will conter argue my opponents claim by a few sources. To begin, stated under "Most Doctors Oppose Physician-Assisted Suicide, Poll Finds" (4), it states: "Most readers of the journal are doctors. Some said assisting a suicide violates a physician's oath to do no harm". That breaks their oath, and the article even goes further by saying 67% dissapprove and the biggest concern were the psychological harm that can come from it. I agree with them completely, and it even goes further with another source. Stated under "The Dangers of Assisted Suicide" (5), it states what most physicians have to go through after killing the individual was: "The AMA advocates that multidisciplinary interventions be sought, including specialty consultation, hospice care, pastoral support, family counseling, emotional support, comfort care, and pain control". That is a ton of drastic events after the physician doing it, and even goes further by the cost done to that individual. That individual is estimated to be out of office for 3 weeks or even longer depending on the damage done. To even further this argument, stated from author "Ryan T. Anderson" (6): "PAS would harm our entire culture, especially our family and intergenerational obligations. The temptation to view elderly or disabled family members as burdens will increase, as will the temptation for those family members to internalize this attitude and view themselves as burdens. Physician-assisted suicide undermines social solidarity and true compassion". Not only the physician, but those around him; and the article even goes further by stating that in 2012, at least 71% of physicians who helped with suicided fell into grief about breaking their own code. To being health and peace to the people, not harm them.To conclude, this debate was really a difference in opinions clashing together. My opponent provided an alright argument, but has many flaws leading to him contradictoring to himself. While I, provided a well-balanced argument, and Rebuttaled successfully at my opponents statements. At times, my opponent did make false accusations and failed to even discuss both sides of our arguments. My opponent even dropped one argument about school bullied victims, and claiming that I had "no" source. That is wrong and unjust by my opponent, and broke the code of conduct within a debate. So voters, would you vote for a ethics breaker or someone who was looking more indepthly on this debate? Vote Con!Sources:1. http://lostallhope.com...2. http://jasonfoundation.com...3. http://wtop.com...4. http://health.usnews.com...5. http://www.aul.org...6. http://www.heritage.org...