The Terminally Ill Should Be Allowed Access to Any Drugs They Want

Unfortunately, my opponent has responded to only what he wants to respond to and ignored the most important arguments. ================ =Recreational Drug Use= ================ My opponent mishandled possibly the most important issue with drug use by the terminally ill: healthcare costs. My opponent says that the terminally ill won't work or be productive, leaving all healthcare costs on their family or the government. Hospitals shouldn't have to deal with the severe medical complications that might come from Grandma Lu using LSD. All he said on the subject was, "As for medical costs these can be limited by making the patient pay for the drugs, and security services." As referenced above, the terminally ill won't be working, so PRO is just letting them get high at their families' expense. ========= =Euthanasia= ========= "Letting the terminally ill use any drug they want doesn't mean we let doctors euthanize patients nonconsentually." I don't think my opponent understands what I'm saying here. The Netherlands doesn't allow doctors to give patients any drugs that would put them out of their misery without their expressed consent. This hasn't stopped 1/3 of assisted suicides in the Netherlands from being performed without expressed consent. Simply saying 'we just won't allow that' hasn't worked in the past, so I see no reason to assume it will work in the future. "As for underreporting we can require reports." Doctors are simply going to report, "I just killed someone without his consent?" Again, making something a law doesn't guarantee it's going to happen. "some even afraid that if they choose euthanasia they will receive eternal damnation. It's more likely for a patient to be pressured to live than die." I can't say that I agree that the threat of eternal damnation is going to check back this problem. Most importantly, this is only a mitigation of the problem. In a society without Euthanasia, there is never a duty to die because there isn't an option to die. In a society with Euthanasia, there is still a duty to die on many, if not all. "The possibility of some patients feeling a "duty to live" isn't a reason to make euthanasia mandatory so the possibility of some patients feeling a "duty to die" isn't a reason to have euthanasia illegal." What? This is complete gibberish. Most people want to live, so we shouldn't force all old people to die. OK? How does this mean that we should allow people who are pressured to die succumb to that pressure? There is absolutely no logical link between the two. ========= =Drug Theft= ========= "'Access to any drugs' doesn't mean any person's drugs, just any type of drug." Yes it does. 'Any drugs' includes my drugs. It includes your drugs. It includes any drugs. PRO is allowing old, dying people to steal your medication so that they can get high or kill themselves on it! That's horrible. ============== =Human Guinea Pigs= ============== There is absolutely no need to test drugs on humans. Rats work effectively and are very cheap. Better yet, monkeys are almost identical to humans.[1] My cousin, aunt, and uncle all work in Louisiana at a major test center for pharmeceutical drugs. The center owns thousands of monkeys on which they do the final testing prior to human use. There is no reason to use humans as guinea pigs for new drugs, when we have much more humane options for testing them. [1] http://www.wired.com...