This house endorses euthanasia

I entirely agree that it is better to alleviate suffering than leave a patient in ongoing agony. However, modern medicine does allow us to control pain very effectively - using morphine or similar. There is alternate palliative care available, so I'm not convinced this is a straight choice between leaving a patient in ongoing agony or utilising euthanasia. I notice that the core thread of Pro's argument appeals to the emotional - which I fully empathise with, as I am not a monster! If I saw a member of my own family suffering, then it doubtless might encourage me to endorse Euthanasia too. But this is precisely the danger, you cannot use purely "heart" arguments to endorse something - you need to use "head" arguments to consider all the risks and ensure you have adequately safeguarded against all the potential "bad stuff" you are risking by introducing Euthanasia - which the logical core of my argument will maintain that Pro will not be able to demonstrate. In order for Pro to make the bold statement "This House endorses Euthanasia", they need to demonstrate adequate safeguards against my original points - which I will re-summarise, as I do not believe Pro has yet directly addressed them: 1) How do you ensure less scrupulous governments, doctors, hospital trusts don't abuse Euthanasia. And by this I don't mean that they will arbitrarily start killing people "en masse", but eg a hospital with a tight budget might instead start endorsing a subtle policy whereby doctors continually reiterate the option of Euthanasia to their patients, rather than stressing the alternate palliative care options - which would of course cost the hospital more in the long term. 2) How do you ever ensure you have genuinely obtained "informed consent" from the patient? This is of paramount importance if you're to be certain you're doing the right thing in killing them. 3) How do you safeguard against introducing a dichotomy to the role of the doctor? Most of the time they are trying to preserve life, then with Euthanasia you introduce one glaring exception. What about when the lines start to blur? 4) You boldly state "yes, we do have the right to take life away" - but I don't fully understand by what authority you can claim this. To deal briefly with some of your direct points to me (4,000 characters is not a great deal for a verbose person like me!) "The greatest will in the world is not the will to die. Rather, it is the will to live." - I think you have misunderstood my use of this phrase in my argument, I was merely using an idiom that you can have the best intentions to allow Euthanasia in only the "most obvious" cases, but pretty soon it will descend down a slippery slope. "With your logic, suicides must be a punishable offense [sic]" - Not at all, I was merely questioning the assumed right that humanity has to take away life - even from the self. I don't say you should punish it, or even that you would have the right to punish it, I was merely raising the moral question that you can't just assume we have the right to take away life. "I'm assuming you've seen the film "I, Robot"." - I have seen most films, and I'm delighted to see that you use films as analogies for arguments because I do the same! I think they are a great modern cultural frame of reference. I actually agree with your third point to a great extent, that a great many modern problems arise from the very modern viewpoint that this life and this world are all that there is - which makes people try to desperately cling on to things at times which they might be better letting go of. I think, as a result, this is the strongest case you make for your argument. "There is no question of God here." - you may have a point, I was merely stating my own frame of reference as I felt it disingenuous of me not to include what I believe. Regardless of your stance on God, the moral point remains "do we have the right to take away life" - and if so, on what authority?