Oregon's Death By Dignity Law.

I applaud my opponent on accurately defining Kantian Ethics, however he has failed to precisely explain why we must reject Euthanasia. He has vaguely mentioned that we all have a duty to be "moral autonomous agents", while advocating the repeal of the right to end one's own life-an action not supporting our duty to be "autonomous agents" if we define autonomous as self-governing and self-ruling. He also hasn't addressed my argument resisting government involvement in these affairs. Before further refuting his argument, I would like to redefine the Oregon Death By Dignity Law, not as one that "claims that "If I am in a terrible condition, I have the right to kill myself, or (more importantly) give that right to another doctor or person)"". But rather as one the allows a person, who is in a terrible condition, to seek peaceful death as a viable option. This right to kill oneself is not given to a doctor or any other person. As I stated in my definition of the Oregon Death by dignity Law, the life is ended through the voluntary SELF administration of the drugs. I would like to remind my opponent that we are debating the Oregon death by Dignity Law, not general Euthanasia. Given my definition of the Oregon Death by Dignity Law, it is not then open to abuse. As the right to end the life is still left up to the patient himself, the doctor or family members are not given the opportunity to force death upon someone. Forcing life upon them for our own conscience is what my opponent is advocating, something he has yet to refute. If the ultimate rule to righteousness and justice is to treat every human as an end, forcing life upon them in order to pacify our own conscience is not treating them as an ends, but rather using them as a means to justify ourselves. In order to truly consider each person as an ends, we must look upon each person and their life separately. If we are to treat ourselves as an ends, we must consider our life as a whole, and if our goal is to live a happy life, then we have the right to terminate our life as long as terminating our life leads to that end or goal that we have mentioned afore. Essentially, the difference between Kantian Ethics, and Utilitarianism is that kantian Ethics focus on your drive, and Utilitarianism on the result. For a matter such as Assisted Suicide, the drive behind it will vary from person to person, so applying Kantian Ethics does not completely appropriate, although the general case according to Oregon records is that the agreement is signed by patients who claimed that their reasons were that the pain was too much to bear, and so we can assume that the Assisted Suicide law is being used largely to reduce pain to a zero, a cause that no moral maxim will disagree with. Especially, Mill's Ethics which say implicitly that any action that promotes pleasure and prevents pain is just. This is essentially the purpose of Assisted Suicide. Our laws should, and are, for the most part, centered around Mill's theory. Increasing living pleasures and decreasing pain and suffering has been the objective of medicine, industry, and everything else since the beginning of time. If one has a smashed arm, we amputate it in order to lessen pain and increase pleasure. For those of us whose pain isn't relievable in such ways, it is only logical that we give another method. With the passage of this act we do not mandate it for all patients in their situation, we are simply offering it to them. Suicide is legal in all 50 states, as of today, for anyone, sick or healthy or mentally retarded. Why then is it illegal for a legally monitored physician to give a pill to a sick and dying patient to help speed up their decline into death? To help make their suicide a fast and painless one? The argument against assisted suicide is full of hypocrisies. One argues against letting a human have the right to take their own life, while arguing about human autonomy and the value of humans. They argue against assisted suicide by theorizing situations of abuse where patients are forced to die, while arguing for a situation where they are forced to live. They argue the injustice of a physician providing assisted suicide pills, in a world where suicide is legal. They argue justice while justifying the forcing of a person to live in pain. I urge a vote PRO, for true autonomy and a true choice. For true respect of human life, and respect for people's own judgement.