Euthanasia

My opponent has essentially forfeited this debate. Despite the fact that I singled out and repeated 8 specific arguments that my opponent dropped, he chose to completely ignore them and not address any of my PRO arguments in the last round. Every single one of those arguments must therefore be awarded in my favor as they are presumed to be dropped concessions. As it is the final round, it is too late for Con to reply as I will not have the opportunity to respond to his rebuttal. I have responded to all of Con's points, but he chose to drop every single one of my affirmative arguments despite me being the instigator of this debate. For the audience's convenience, I will summarize those 8 points although they can be referenced more in depth under a gigantic heading in my last round argument as well as Round 1. All of these must be kept in consideration of my favor.1. Americans have the right to bodily autonomy; it's the epitome of freedom 2. Forcing one to endure an unnecessarily prolonged, painful death could be considered torture3. We "put down" animals out of love to end their suffering - why not extend the same consideration to humans?4. Loved ones have power of attorney rights to make medical and other decisions on behalf of the incompetent5. We could/would put high standards and safe guards in place to avoid any foul play6. Research shows this option enhances the quality of life for the patient's last days and their end-of-life care7. It is exorbitantly expensive to spend so much money keeping someone alive when they will be unaware and/or in pain8. A Dutch report found that in 86 percent of cases, euthanasia shortened life by a maximum of a week and usually only a few hours Assuming I have to negate Con's arguments to win this debate, I will. Re: Contention 1 - Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia Without Consent Con says that even if someone is in a persistent vegetative state, their loved ones and/or doctors cannot make the decision of euthanasia on their behalf. He writes "The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide weather or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind." This seems to indicate that my opponents does in fact support euthanasia - he supports voluntary euthanasia. I'm glad for that but I'm pretty sure he is supposed to be arguing against euthanasia all-together... I am 100% against involuntary euthanasia.In defense of non-voluntary euthanasia, Con has ignored the majority of my rebuttal from the last round. I will repeat myself verbatim: "While many people do not have the opportunity to provide written consent agreeing to euthanasia, that does not mean they wouldn't choose that option and haven't expressed that sentiment to a loved one. In many emergency cases, a spouse or parent has to make life-or-death decisions for a loved one for whom they have power of attorney rights or another partnership, whether or not the one in critical condition had the chance to give explicit instructions. That is common in the medical field. Either way, if the argument is that euthanasia will be done and go unreported, who is to say that doctors aren't already doing it and not reporting it here specifically because it's illegal? This isn't a good argument against legalization because it doesn't allow for criminalization to be a sufficient deterrent. Furthermore what do unreported acts have to do with the inherent morality of the act itself?" Con's argument boils down to the fact that he's not okay with anyone but the individual choosing euthanasia. First, Con already concedes to the benefit of euthanasia at this point (voluntary) and second, this translates to Con being worried that a doctor or loved one will choose this option against the patient's will. As you can see, I am not really misinterpreting his argument at all. He is suggesting that euthanasia against one's will (murder) is the likely result of legalization. Ergo, he is using the ridiculous slippery slope logical fallacy to suggest that family members and doctors will suddenly have the urge to kill unnecessarily and immorally. I have repeatedly asked why a next of kin, power of attorney or medical professional would choose to end someone's life unnecessarily. Con never answered and simply said that isn't what he is suggesting, which he clearly is as you can see from his own words. Like I said in Round 1, the likelihood of someone recovering from a vegetative state is exceptionally small. Another fallacy used by Con here is the appeal to emotion and selective representation of information. It is a completely false, bold faced lie to say that Terri Schiavo RECOVERED from her vegetative state! The faulty statistics and arguments used by my opponent do not reflect reality. First, "waking up" from a vegetative state is NOT the same as regaining cognitive function and ability. Even those who "wake up" and open their eyes hardly ever regain the capacity to speak, think and feel to even the most basic level of human development. There is highly questionable video footage of Terri Schiavo making noises before her death. That does not mean "recovery." Consider the video footage where she allegedly opens her eyes on command. After she opens her eyes, you can hear the speaker advising Schiavo to close her eyes, but the footage abruptly ends. Isn't that strange? Instead of proving Schiavo could respond to commands by opening and closing her eyes, they don't show Schiavo closing her eyes on command directly thereafter because she could likely NOT understand the speaker or respond accordingly. If you hold a video camera on someone and say "open your eyes" eventually they will, but they were unable to prove cognitive function in Schiavo's case which is ultimately why the euthanasia occurred. Again, Con is suggesting that Schiavo's husband just wanted to kill her I guess... Contention 2: Slippery Slope ArgumentCon says that I have "misinterpreted" his argument, however, I have not. I will use his own words to show that I have not misrepresented the crux of his point. He writes, "I'm simply showing how legalizing this will lead to more as society gets to accept it as a norm... It's social acceptable, because society has accepted it as a norm and has been used to it for so long... The cases of Euthanasia in both Belgium and Netherlands have doubled and skyrocketed since they had been able to legalize it and this is proof of this becoming a norm." Ergo, he is arguing that legalization would lead to normalization and increased used of euthanasia.I have already agreed that this is accurate. I specifically explained that when there is more information and access to a procedure people think is beneficial, that more people will pursue it as a potential option. I do not think euthanasia is morally unsound, so I do not see more widespread application as a negative. I mentioned that I am advocating for more euthanasia (increased access to those who want it). I pointed out that only involuntary euthanasia (against one's will) is bad. Con wrote in R1 that the rate of involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia jumped to a whopping 1.8% in Belgium. Aside from that being an extremely low percentage to begin with, that figure includes involuntary euthanasia which once again I am not supporting in this debate. Con has to prove that INVOLUNTARY euthanasia (which I consider murder - killing someone against their will) would occur more, not just non-voluntary euthanasia which means the patient did not have the opportunity to specifically consent.Contention 3: Giving The Healing Doctor A Killing Role None of what I said in the last round was misrepresented from my source. I pointed out that 95% of U.S. physicians have no objection to taking someone off life support, and 82% have no objection to terminal sedation. Con never denies that my source makes these specific claims because they absolutely do.The rest of the stats cited by Con are irrelevant. I've already explained that doctors who do not wish to perform any procedure against their will should absolutely not and not have to, so what is the point in highlighting which racial demographics and religions support physician assisted suicide? If an Asian doesn't want to perform the procedure, she shouldn't. If a white woman doesn't, she shouldn't either. I've explicitly pointed out that more people reject euthanasia when it's called "suicide." That explains why most doctors are allegedly against physician assisted suicide, but 95% support taking someone off life support as per the very own source myself and Con sourced... meaning the term suicide makes people feel icky, but the process doesn't. Extend my argument that many doctors feel this is the best course of action for aforementioned reasons.