Resolved: Voluntary Euthanasia is Morally Justified

REBUTTALSR1. SufferingPro makes the assumption that suffering is essentially bad, but it really isn't. Everyone suffers, and all people go through trials and obstacles that they must overcome. When we face these trials, the one thing we are cautioned not to do is to quit and give up. Euthanasia is comparable to quitting, because the patient is admitting that they are giving up on life and refuse to face the necessary obstacles that are present.Suffering contains value because it provides the opportunity to grow in wisdom, character, and compassion. Many of the talents and strengths that humans have developed have been brought about because of endurance and suffering in order to reach that spot. One who is unfit to climb a mountain must endure suffering to become fit for the challenge. Through resistance people's best characteristics are brought out, which enable growth and a peak of personality. When people know what it is like to suffer, they become more compassionate for people who are suffering because they understand their situation better. The ability to endure pain helps people in so many ways that to give up entirely seems unsound with the blessing of endurance.We should relieve suffering when we can, and when we can't we should be with those to help them bear their pain and burdens. We should never deal with the problem of suffering by eliminating those who suffer. One's intrinsic worth is the same before and after bearing pain, and the presence of it at all cannot change the value of each person. Furthermore, it is impossible for a physician to determine whether a patient is really suffering as much as they suppose, so giving physicians that kind of power is dangerous.R2. ConsentMy opponent argues that human rights are not violated if one's consent is involved. However, this argument doesn't hold up because consent is not enough to justify one's elimination. Self-consent is what justifies self-afflicted death in the minds of suicidal people, but because one offers their consent does not mean they are right about their decision. People who are really suffering are not under the right circumstances to assess themselves properly, especially when handed the decision of their own death. If my consent to me being euthanized was influenced by pressure from family and friends, then my decision wouldn't have been entirely influenced by my own desires, but by the desires of others. My consent can be influenced by so many external factors, including confusion from the pain and the immediate desire for something when the long-term consequences matter more. It is wrong to trust a patient with such a serious burden, and that patient's consent may not be of his or her best interest or for what is morally right, so the case for consent does not work.R3. IntentHaving a good intent does not mean that intent isn't ill-placed, wrongly determined, or unjust. If I were to harm someone else out of good intent, that doesn't necessarily mean my act upon them was justified. Mercy can be perceived both ways; euthanasia may stop one's suffering but it would disallow them from ever experiencing the joy or happiness that also comes with life and with overcoming burdens. It would also prevent one from learning and growing from his or her sufferings, and would only satisfy the loss of pain. This is not enough to justify the elimination of a human being, and to say that the intent of doing so was positive doesn't dictate what is moral or justified. ConclusionI have shown why euthanasia does not fit the moral triangle Pro has described and that voluntary euthanasia is not justified. Even if the intent were good, the two other parts of the triangle remain incomplete and incompatible with euthanasia. Suffering is necessary for human growth and consent cannot be properly trusted for such a morbid decision. Thus, the resolution is negated.