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

My opponent's argument appears to be centered around one main point: the role of doctors. To prove that his arguments are flawed, I will be using a three-pronged approach: 1. Physicians do not always "bring about the patient's end", as my opponent claims. A device currently on display at the British Museum, the Deliverance Machine, ensured that it would be the patient bringing about their own death - a physician would not even have to be involved. 2. Doctors would not be obliged to administer euthanasia, just as they are not required to perform operations such as neonatal circumcision now. 3. Terminally ill patients are not always able to bring about their own death. For this third point, I will be citing the example of Christian Rossiter, a man from Australia who won the "right to die" in 2009. Before I refute the major flaws in my opponent's case, I would like to address the results of the Gallup poll that my opponent disputed. My opponent wonders why I refer to those against voluntary euthanasia as a vocal minority. In 2002, a Gallup poll returned results of 72% in favour of voluntary euthanasia, and in a second poll, only 31% said they would oppose voluntary euthanasia in all circumstances, even when a terminally ill patient is experiencing intolerable suffering. From these two polls, it can be assumed that a vast majority of Americans consider voluntary euthanasia acceptable, even if only for some (with an exclusion of say, people suffering from depression). Back to the issue! The first point I would like to address is the statement made by my opponent that "in order for euthanasia to take place, two parties must be present[,] one being the patient and one being a physician". However, this is not true. From 1995 to 1997, a device called the Deliverance Machine was used by several patients to end their own lives. The device asked the patients three questions, all variations on "do you understand that if you press the 'yes' button, you will die? ". The device allowed a patient to die with no involvement from a physician. [1] A similar device involving inhaled gases was invented by founder of Exit International, Dr Philip Nitschke, was invented in 2008. The invention of these devices mean that although a doctor would be involved in giving a device to the patient for use, they would not ultimately be the ones administering a lethal injection. A second point that my opponent makes is that doctors would legally be required to assist in the patient's suicide, and that this would be an infringement of their rights. This is not so. In some areas, parents may be hard-pressed to find a physician willing to perform a circumcision on their infant child. Doctors are not 'legally required' to perform circumcisions, as it may be against their beliefs to do so. This would also be the situation if euthanasia were to be legalized in the United States. If it is against their beliefs to bring about the death of a patient, they would not be required to do so. This way, it will be possible to keep both patients and doctors happy. Patients will be able to undergo voluntary euthanasia, and doctors would not be legally required to do so - just like circumcisions. A third point of my opponent's that I would like to address is the belief that terminally ill patients are free to end their own lives if they wish to do so, without the assistance of others. However, this is simply not true for some. To support this point, I would like to use the case of Christian Rossiter, a quadraplegic from Australia, as an example. In 2009, Rossiter won a ruling from his state's Supreme Court allowing him to die, and absolving his carers from any criminal offence for allowing his death. Rossiter was experiencing intolerable suffering. According to him, "I am a prisoner in my own body. I can't move. I can't even wipe the tears from my eyes" [2]. As Rossiter was a quadraplegic, he was not able to commit suicide by "hanging [or] slashing. .. the wrists" as my opponent claims. Although Rossiter was given the right to refuse food and medical treatment, euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke claims that euthanasia is more humane than starving to death, as obviously, starving is a very painful process. Euthanasia, however, is a quick and simple process. Finally, my opponent claims that I think euthanasia is a medical treatment. As medical treatment has the aim of 'fixing' a health problem, euthanasia cannot be a medical treatment, as it does not bring about the removal of a cancer from the body, for example. Euthanasia is a means to escape the effects of the medical problem, yes, but it does not ultimately heal it. To begin Round 2 of this debate, I would like to remind readers of the three reasons I have discussed that render my opponent's points moot. Firstly, a physician does not have to be present during the death itself. Devices such as the Deliverance Machine allow a patient to initiate the euthanizing process themselves. Secondly, doctors would not be required to agree to euthanizing a patient, just as they are not required to perform circumcisions. Finally, do not forget the unfortunate case of Christian Rossiter from Australia. Although anti-euthanasia advocates such as my opponent may claim that people are free to commit suicide if they wish, some are not able to, and to put themselves out of suffering, request that they are euthanized for their own benefit. Sources [1] . http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk... [2] . http://www.abc.net.au... [3] . http://www.abc.net.au...