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

Firstly, I would like to deal with the argument put forward by my opponent that the Gallup poll which returned a result in favour of voluntary euthanasia "is a pathetic excuse for a poll". Perhaps my opponent would feel more comfortable if I used results from state government-run ballots as evidence (no federal ballot has yet occurred). In 1997, 60% of Oregonian voters endorsed a law which allowed "terminally-ill adults to obtain lethal prescription". [1] In 2008, 57.82% of Washington voters approved a measure "allowing certain terminally-ill competent adults to obtain lethal prescriptions". [2] Returning to the issue of privately-run polls, I find it surprising that my opponent would resort to the argument that the poll 'wasn't run properly' to rebut the results. Several other privately-run polls have returned results in favour of legalising euthanasia, and I doubt my opponent would dare to claim that every single one of these polls had major flaws in their operation. I will cite a few of these polls here. A piece of 1996 text reports that approximately two-thirds of poll respondents are in favour of legalising euthanasia in at least some circumstances (terminally-ill patient experiencing pain, etc. ). [3] A 2006 journal claims that "Americans have consistently favored the freedom to end one's life when the perceived quality of life has significantly diminished. .. " [4] In another Gallup poll, this one surveying 1,003 adult Americans, found that 71% support euthanasia in the case of terminally-ill patients. [5]. So, my opponent may challenge the validity of one poll, but he would not dare to challenge the validity of the several polls I have cited here. Public opinion is clearly in favour of legalising euthanasia, and law-makers should act to reflect the opinions of the public. My opponent claims that "people with physical handicapps [sic]. .. could simply starve to death. .. ". It takes the average person four to six weeks to starve to death. [6] The symptoms of starvation include diarrhea, rashes, hallucinations, insomnia, [7] vomiting, impaired immunity (such that other diseases may be acquired, furthering the suffering for the patient) [8], hypothermia, depression, anxiety and heart attack. [9] This places the patient in an even more undignified position than previously. If diarrhea or vomiting occurs, the quadriplegic patient would not be able to clean the waste off their body. Imagine experiencing this for over a month. Life would be even more hellish than previously. In contrast, if euthanasia was legalised, such a terminally-ill patient would be able to receive an injection and pass away almost instantly in a peaceful state, without waiting for over a month to relieve themselves from the pain. To conclude my case, I would like to address the questions that my opponent posed to me in the previous round. Firstly, we are not debating whether a healthy person has the "right to die". I would like to remind my opponent of the inclusion of the term "terminally-ill" in the debate topic. However, if I were to address this point briefly, I would direct my opponent to his argument in Round 1 of this debate, where he stated that if a person could "muster up the strength to commit suicide on his own (e. g. hanging, slashing of the wrists) then he may do so. His "right to death" is not being abridged, as death is still an option to him. " The difference with terminally-ill patients is that they are often not able to commit suicide by their own accord due to factors such as immobility, age, etc. To address the second question posed by my opponent, no, I do not believe that relieving a terminally-ill patient of their pain by allowing them to pass away devalues human life. Killing somebody who wishes to continue living is another situation altogether. However, somebody who no longer wishes to live should be able to have their wishes respected. In response my opponent's third question, I would like to make clear what a terminal illness is. It appears that my opponent may be under the impression that a terminal illness is always accompanied by some kind of mental impairment from the wording of their third question. In most cases, a terminal illness does not affect the mental capacity of the patient at all. In instances such as cancer, the brain continues to function as usual. Just like a terminally-ill patient has the mental capacity to write a will or even vote, they have the mental capacity to exercise their right to die. Finally, I would like my opponent to consider the words of Bob Dent, a 66-year-old prostate cancer sufferer from Australia who died under a short-lived euthanasia law there in 1996. 'If I were to keep a pet animal in the same condition I am in, I would be prosecuted. If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia, then don't use it, but don't deny the right to me to use it. ' [10] As this will be my last chance to argue on this topic during this debate, I would like to thank my opponent for such worthy opposition and wish him well in his future endeavours. Sources [1] . http://bluebook.state.or.us... [2] . http://www.vote.wa.gov... [3] . http://archinte.ama-assn.org... [4] . http://heinonline.org...= [5] . http://www.gallup.com... [6] . http://www.professorshouse.com... [7] . http://chestofbooks.com... [8] . http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com... [9] . http://www.diagnose-me.com... [10] . http://www.nytimes.com...