That allowing terminally ill patients to die when and how they choose is justified

I'm fond of concise arguments that hopefully encapsulate the primary points - hopefully I succeed in doing so with this round. Thanks to my opponent and this tournament, hope it goes well. Furthermore, Ii accept the definitions my opponent has used, and the burden he has placed upon me: to demonstrate that people ought to have the liberty of deciding to end their own life. First and foremost, there is the gaping issue of a meta-ethical justification for our approaches towards euthanasia - after all, if I hold a Kantian position in contrast to a rule-utilitarian approach, my answers to the resolution will vary considerably. For the sake of convenience, I will for the sake of argument subscribe to my opponent's value of personal liberty, right of bodily integrity, etc. If he were to reject these principles, he is implicitly rejecting his own position thus dooming his own position. Let's have a standard to work on, as I want to focus on an ethical discussion of euthanasia in the context of accepted moral principles rather than having a tangent about meta-ethics/justification for ethical theories. There are going to be 3 primary sections of my round: Primary flaw of my opponent's argument No substantial justification for life being a "higher-order" value than the right to die Response to several other objections The primary flaw in my opponent's argument is that he has an incomplete picture of the pinnacle right to bodily integrity/personal liberty. He doesn't take into account that these rights-oriented principles are primarily concerned with the expression, practice, and respect of such rights IRRESPECTIVE of how people may do to themselves. The concept of personal liberty doesn't preclude people foolishly damaging their own bodies/wellbeing. My point can be summarized in the following:"Since the right to self-determination meas the right to self-preservation, it does not include a right to die."--> A right of self-preservation does not mean an obligation to self-preservation. Another curious point my opponent brings up is this emphasized value of life. Being seen as the "foundation" of all other values, he claims that it somehow has a higher-order value than right to liberty, self-deliberation, etc. What he needs to do is to justify this - simply because life is a biological necessary step to having other values, doesn't mean it has a higher metaphysical status than other values. The point about finding no clear implication in the Constitution does not fade me at all - I don't care for any existing laws in support of my position, as something being legal does not necessarily mean it is morally permissible. Neither is the issue of patients having a potentially pain-free life (due to some unforseen medical reason) have an impact - if the patient is rational and lucid and make a decision, it is their right and responsibility to handle any consequences as a result of this, even if such deliberation was irrational. There is the practical issue of patient's state of mind when considering euthanasia, and that is a noteworthy remark, but ultimately it focuses ont he pragmatic issues surrounding euthanasia and not the purely ethical dimensions of the issue itself. It shouldn't be seen necessary that problematic rational deliberation is intertwined with euthansia - it's easily conceivable that we can achieve methods of securing a patients rational deliberation irrespective of their condition hindering such judgement. In other words, this point is valid when considering how to legislate euthanasia but not so much when considering the ethical status of euthanasia.