To be decided in this debate

<<< Yes, I agree with your assessment. =====Counterarguments===== >>>As we can see, making decisions about your body don't always affect just you. <<< This is indeed true, and I no doubt support it. However, not every decision you make about your own body affects others. Euthanasia does NOT physically affect others but you yourself. >>>Many patients who desire to be euthanized are not thinking rationally as my opponent states. They can be on heavy doses of morphine, despairing over their condition, or fearful of the economic strain they are putting on their families due to extended hospital stays. Fear, despair, and drugs can easily cause a person to think irrationally. <<< There are several things wrong with this argument. First, for the patient to even be considered for euthanasia they have to fulfill 5 requirements. The first is to be diagnosed with a terminal illness. The second is to be in a situation where there is likely no hope for their cure. The third is that they be in immense pain and a unnecessary dependence on others (family). The fourth and important is that they have to have an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or if they specify before their surgery/diagnosis that in cases of terminal illness they be put in euthanasia). Secondly, well regulated systems with euthanasia, Oregon as an example[1], have safeguards against these problems. Euthanasia isn't something they do on a whim in one day. Common things they do, and I quote, "include presenting patients with the option for palliative care; ensuring that patients are competent to make end-of-life decisions for themselves; limiting the procedure to patients who are terminally ill; ensuring the voluntariness of the request; obtaining a second opinion on the case; requiring the request to be persistent, i. e. , made a second time after a two week interval; encouraging the involvement of the next of kin; and requiring physicians to inform OPHD of all cases in which they have written a prescription for the purpose of assisted suicide. " >>>This debate is not about whether they should have the right; rather it is over whether or not the whole idea of euthanasia is morally justifiable. <<< Obviously whether or not they should have the right is PART of the ethical debate over euthanasia. >>>Euthanasia is not always painless. <<< This has nothing to do with the ethical aspect. As technology and more open research goes into euthanasia-related fields, then we can find better ways to kill them. I always thought that a shotgun shot to the back of the head was best ;D. But you know what I mean, we can find ways. And citing Belgium as an example isn't great, since our medical technology and safeguards are of a much higher standard. >>>There is also the problem of the slippery slope. .. <<< The problem with most slippery slope arguments is that they usually end up becoming a slippery slope FALLACY. To be certified as a valid argument, the onus is on you to show how it will lead from assisted-suicide to "depressed teenagers". The fine line is quite explicit and defined. Euthanasia is only for those who are terminally ill, in tons of pain, and who voluntarily and competently ask for suicide. >>>Eventually it gets to a point where we can't distinguish between one's freedom to die and one's duty to die. <<< There is no "duty to die". Everyone has the freedom to die at their own choice. =====Conclusion===== My opponent fails to realize that the euthanasia procedure is very meticulous and safeguarded. Similarly so, he has barely touched on the ethics of euthanasia, so my point still stands that euthanasia is morally justifiable. ---References--- 1. . http://www.spiorg.org...