Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill

Let's start with Pro's concessions: (1) euthanasia creates risks of abuse/error, and (2) not all terminally ill patients suffer. The first concession means that euthanasia shouldn't be legal if there's better alternatives. The second concession undermines all of Pro's offense on suffering, because the resolution requires that Pro support euthanasia for all terminally ill patients, not just those who suffer. Pro's case is vague, inconsistent, and incoherent. In R2, for example, Pro says the government doesn't have the right to intervene in matters of death. I pushed back on that, so in R3, Pro says the government should intervene in death, enact appropriate safeguards, record the event, and so on. Pro even says the government should help us make moral decisions, which sounds like paternalism rather than libertarianism. Now, in R4, Pro advocates some sort of bizarre paternalistic libertarian framework, where the government gets to help us make moral decisions, like stopping us from committing suicide, but it doesn't get to prevent doctors from killing their patients. And apparently the government also gets to intervene in death, decide who is expendable enough to be killed and who isn't (i. e. someone who suffers enough and is terminally ill apparently isn't worth fully protecting), and create a system where risks of abuse/error are preferred to alternatives without risks of abuse/error. This simply makes no sense. The framework underlying Pro's argument is incoherent. The strangest argument Pro makes is his argument to prefer euthanasia over assisted suicide. Specifically, Pro says euthanasia is preferable because suicide is against the rules of two religions. But Pro doesn't advocate for these religions or their beliefs. Instead, Pro's argument rests on the idea that suicide isn't acceptable to these religious people, regardless of whether the religions are right or wrong. This argument isn't remotely compelling. The idea that voluntary euthanasia isn't suicide is bizarre: in both euthanasia and suicide, the patient intentionally acts to end their own life. The key difference is that euthanasia involves numerous risks of abuse and error because it empowers doctors to kill their patients, while assisted suicide and regular suicide don't. And the notion that we should enact a human right based on the preferences of a few religious people is simply unconvincing, especially when these two religions probably prohibit euthanasia anyway. Pro says we should enact rights based on the majority, but the entire point of human rights is to protect the minority from the majority. So that point also fails. Pro says I'm denying these religious people the right to die, but I'm not denying them anything. Their decision to commit suicide or to live through their suffering is a personal one that they make, on the basis of their religious views. They're free to change their religious views just as I'm free to change mine. Either way, the government shouldn't be enacting human rights on the basis of religious views. The reason risks of abuse/error matter is because there's other options with no risks. For instance, suicide -- no doctor can mistakenly or intentionally end your life against your wishes when you commit suicide. The decision is completely yours. The same goes for assisted suicide, since you personally have to end your own life. Euthanasia simply gives doctors too much power over our lives, and the risks that entails aren't worth it, because there's other ways to end our lives, end our suffering, without any risks. Pro's responses aren't persuasive. On suicide and the right to refuse medical treatment, Pro says he supports both but they're illegal in some places. However, that argument has no impact on the resolution, since the resolution is a normative one. Pro is advocating a change in the law, which means I can advocate a different change in the law that's preferable to Pro's change. I advocate the right to suicide, the right to refuse medical treatment, and in extreme cases, the right to assisted suicide. And my point is that there's no reason to legalize euthanasia simply because patients aren't allowed to commit suicide or refuse medical treatment. The solution to that problem is recognizing a right to suicide and a right to refuse treatment. You should prefer my solution because it doesn't have any of the risks associated with euthanasia. On involuntary euthanasia, Pro says it's illegal everywhere. But this is untrue. The Netherlands legalized involuntary euthanasia a few years after legalizing voluntary euthanasia. This happened because both forms of euthanasia rest on the same logic: ending suffering. Pro's entire case rests on this same logic. The utilitarian project of weighing suffering against the right to life inevitably leads to involuntary euthanasia when suffering significantly outweighs the right to life. Of course, that determination is left to doctors and the state, which is what makes involuntary euthanasia such a frightening proposition. In response, Pro says that doctors won't be able to kill their patients painlessly if euthanasia is illegal. But that's untrue. And even if it's true, it's irrelevant. The point is that we need to discourage doctors from murdering their patients. If euthanasia is legal, there's less deterrence. There's always the excuse that it was a mistake (hence the risks of abuse). And there's risks of coercion. Pro admits that euthanasia turns doctors into killers. Pro's torture point wasn't ignored; it was addressed by recognizing the right to refuse medical treatment. Doctors aren't under any obligation to prolong suffering. I also addressed it by pointing out access to palliative care. And in extreme circumstances, doctors can terminally sedate their patients, ending all suffering while still keeping their patients alive. This ensures that the medical profession remain focused on curing disease rather than killing. Finally, extend my argument on equality. Pro's asking us to enforce an arbitrary distinction between people. In response, Pro says he's giving the right to euthanasia to everyone, except you only get the right when you're terminally ill. Well, not everyone is terminally ill, so not everyone has the right to euthanasia. Pro simply misunderstands my argument. Or his argument makes no sense. Or I'm too stupid to understand it. Either way, it's not important, because I win the debate on all the rest of the points addressed above. Also, remember that euthanasia rests on the notion that human life only has instrumental value. Pro completely ignores that point, so extend it fully. The impact is that any rationale for equal protection of the law drops away, because there's no reason to treat people equally if we don't actually think they're equal. Equality requires that we recognize the intrinsic value of human life.