Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice

Thanks, Con. Con's sole means of attacking my opening argument is questioning the existence of the right to death; however, his points against it basically just ignore all the logical justification I gave for it... I will refute his rebuttal point by point for lack of a better way to organize this."I do agree that we as citizens have the right to life, however, that does not mean that we have the right to death. Life and death are totally different things,"False. Death is nothing more than the absence of life. Since my life is my own property, I am free to discard it, just as I am free to discard my own material property. I used this exact same logic to justify the existence of the right to death in my opening argument, but Con has not even attempted to attack that justification. "While you could argue that "putting someone to sleep" is promoting well-being, it all depends on interpretation of the constitution."Con concedes that euthanasia can be constitutional. "According to Tom Coburn, doctor and US Senator, says that no one wants to have doctors deciding who lives and who dies."As I stated in the beginning of my constructive case, euthanasia would only be allowed to be administered with the full consent of the patient; it would not be the doctors who are "deciding who lives and who dies"-- it would be the individuals deciding for themselves whether or not they personally want to live or die, as they should be able to."The Declaration of Independence says that we should have the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing in it says we have the right to pursue death, nothing."First of all, the Declaration of Independence no longer has any legal authority (if it ever did); it is simply an artifact of historical significance. Secondly, the exact wordings are actually "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; there is nothing about "pursuing life" in there. We have the right to keep our lives if we wish to do so, and that logically entails the right to give up our lives if we wish to do so (i.e. the right to death), *especially* if doing so would aid in our pursuit of happiness, which is often the case with terminally ill patients who request euthanasia. "Pro is also forgetting the Due Process Clause that protects "the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest." The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of rejection to permit it by vote of 9-0"This resolution is not at all specific to the United States; the resolution makes a general statement about legalizing euthanasia in medical practice, indicating universal application of the motion. In other words, by citing a Supreme Court case, Con is simply committing the appeal to authority fallacy, since the Supreme Court holds no legal authority outside of the United States. My philosophical reasoning supporting the right to death should obviously take precedence over Con's fallacious logic, here."[R]estrictions placed on suicide do not have any intrusions, but it simply is preventing individuals from hindering the natural process and cycle of death."This point is completely defeated by the observation that the very act of attempting to preserve someone's life through medical treatment goes against the "natural process and cycle of death" as well. Following Con's logic that we should allow things to take their "natural" course, we should also allow people who are dying of naturally-risen diseases to die, since that is what would happen "naturally". Con has no choice but to drop this point, as its implications contradict the rest of his case. "Is intrusion, therefore, limiting the freedom (right) of the population? Perhaps. Does it become unconstitutional? No. Stare decisis remains here."Some restrictions on our personal liberty are justified if they make significant contributions to the greater good (e.g. speed limits); however, Con has not even come close to showing that banning euthanasia would result in such a benefit, instead making contradictory moral arguments and fallacious appeals to authority. In conclusion, all of Con's objections are refuted, and my constructive case for the legalization of euthanasia remains standing. The resolution is affirmed.