We should help those who want to commit suicide

To begin my argument, I like to rebuttal against my opponents statements that he brought within the debate. Quoted by my opponent: "But in the end, everyone is entitled to human rights. This includes 'dominion'". It is agreed that allowing the person themselves to commit suicide is a right, but have someone else do the suicide upon the individual is not really a human right. My opponent uses the term "dominion", which is defined as: "Ownership, or right to property"(1). Following the definition, even used by my opponent, the person themselves have the right to commit suicide, but is not a right to force someone else to help them cause suicide. To further this argument, stated from "Is there a Constitutional Right to Physician Suicide"(2), it says: "However, the U.S. Constitution does not provide any right to assisted suicide". This disproves my opponents argument about assisted suicide not being a right. Other rules like Freedom of Speech, Religion, and Due Process Rights are there, but nothing about allowing someone to commit suicide. This flaws my opponents argument about, and it even states it within the Bill of Rights. Under Section 1 of Amendment 14 (3), it states: "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". Stated within the bold text that I placed, it says we cannot take a persons life; so assisted suicide cannot be used.Then my opponent quotes this: Instead, we should help them carry out their death in a safe way, rather than denying a person of basic rights that the law says they should have. Without the proper guidance, a person may decide to commit suicide in a way that could cause unnecessary damage to themselves and those around them". First off, I laugh at my opponents wording about this sentence because he says there should be a "safe" way of commiting suicide. Don't you know what suicide is? The person kills themselves, and that is it. There is nothing safe about that, when one kills themselves; they do any means of measure to get the job done. Then my opponent continues further, with the quote, about "unnecessary damage". 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. Also, near the end of the previous quote, my opponent said "A person may decide to commit suicide in a way that could cause unnecessary damage to themselves and those around them". If my opponent is worried about the damage to the people around the suicidal victim, why do we want to discuss about assisted suicide? If the "uneccesary damage" occurs towards those around them, why are we putting the people who help cause suicide at risk?In the previous round, I brought up a question to my opponent about victims of school bullies, one of the highest causes of suicide. I asked "Should they be able to commit suicide themselves"? My opponent replied with: "As I stated above, dominion gives a person perfect control in the right of ownership. And as my opponent refers to the bullies in her question as "school bullies", my rebuttal is that in most first world countries, children [4] are joint property of the community and their parent(s)/guardian(s). And therefore would not be allowed to independently make that decision". To rebuttal against my opponent, I will break this quote down in multiple stages."As I stated above, dominion gives a person perfect control in the right of ownership".This argument has already been disproven, and will still argue it. Like I stated above, I will agree that the individual, him or herself, has a right to themselves for causing suicide; but does not have a right to force others to cause suicide for them. Following the topic about assisted suicide, my opponents argument mainly consists of a personal human right and fails to bring up why its a right for others to help with the suicidal action. Yes, the person has ownership to their body but why should others be forced to help that person to cause suicide?"And as my opponent refers to the bullies in her question as "school bullies", my rebuttal is that in most first world countries, children [4] are joint property of the community and their parent(s)/guardian(s). And therefore would not be allowed to independently make that decision".This statement, brought upon my opponent, can easily be said as "loaded". It will be agreed that the mother and father of the child has ownership, but do they really control their kids actions? No, they do not because a kid will listen 75% of the time but will not listen to all their parents rules. Stated under "Youth Suicide Statistics"(4), it states: "Suicide is the SECOND leading cause of death for college-age youth and ages 12-18. (2013 CDC WISQARS)". This is, obviously, sad about how many youth cause suicide because of bullying. Continuing on with my opponents statement about parents, there are studies that prove that teenagers do not listen to their parents. One example is from "Study Dissects why Teenagers Don’t Listen to Parents,where it states: "Not surprisingly, the scans showed increased activity in areas of the brain involved with negative emotions. The researchers also found reduced activity inparts of the brain that help teenagers understand their guardian’s point of view". Teens don't always follow their parents ruling, and because of this makes my opponents argument flawed about school bullying.If a victim of a school bully is suffering, why should we end their life when there can be a potential future for them. Imagine how much distress would occur from family, friends, and others if we allowed assisted suicide to the victim just because of having a "bumpy" start in school. Suicide is and isn't a choice. It is on making a decision about ending your life, but it isn't if being influenced by negative emotions (Like with a school bully). Why should we end their life? I still stand upon the position that we should help these people, instead of just helping end their life. And my opponent even agrees with the following quote: "I agree that there are multiple programs and different forms of treatment that could help a depressed individual, and that before being allowed to be put to death, a person should take psychological tests to ensure their decision is a proper one".Before concluding this round with my argument, I wish to bring up one more factor about allowing the person with assisted suicide. Who i the one who helps with assisted suicide? The physician of course, where he or she does the action of helping cause assisted suicide. Unfortunately, having this innocent bistandual do the action actually causes more harm, than the suicidal victim. Stated under "Emotional and Psychological Effects of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia on Participating Physicians" (6), it states: "Many doctors who have participated in assisted suicide are affected emotionally and psychologically from their experience". The article goes further by stating that just a regular assisted suicide, not Euthanasia, actually puts more harm upon the physician because of Euthanasia at least having a legitamate reason; examples being the patient being terminally ill and won't survive, but ending their suffering. The article even goes further by stating the fact that at least 30% of physicians who participate in assisting suicide, kill themselves in a year or so because of grief. How is this any better, when its actually causing more harm than just letting the individual him or herself do the action to themselves?Sources:1. http://thelawdictionary.org...2. http://healthcare.findlaw.com...3. http://www.ushistory.org...4. http://jasonfoundation.com...5. http://wtop.com...6. http://www.pccef.org...