Tim's debate tournament: Euthanasia

I would first like to point out that my points have gone unchallenged by my opponent. He does not deny that laws against voluntary euthanasia are completely at odds with personal autonomy or that the user of ones body has more of a right to control it than a casual observer(at the very least he has shown no reason why a casual observer has the positive right to restrict consensual activities that do not harm others). My opponent has on the other hand decided that no one has enough reason to want to request voluntary euthanasia and so it should be outlawed. Even so, I shall negate each of his points accordingly.1. Patients requesting Euthanasia are depressedMy opponent claims that 90% of patients requesting euthanasia are depressed and that because they are depressed, they are not capable of deciding whether they should live or die. But as I asked previously, why does a casual observer have more of a right to tell one when one can or cannot die than the one who actually possesses the body? The right to self ownership is inalienable. That is, unless it is exchanged away just like any other piece of property whether through mutual exchange or gift. To try to deprive a person of self ownership is thus thievery and immoral.Furthermore, my opponent's source allegedly showing that 90% of patients requesting assisted suicide are depressed was not from a medical journal or website. It was from an editorial by the USA Today from 1993. No medical source was provided. I checked a few different anti-euthanasia websites for a link to the actual article but none was ever provided. So unless my opponent can provide a credible medical source for the level of depression among terminally ill patients being 90%, I will argue that we should not only dismiss this statistic fully, but also move on to focus on those terminally ill patients who request suicide who are not clinically depressed.When looking for credible statistics on euthanasia, it is best to look to places where it is either fully or partially legalized. The Netherlands and the U.S. state, Oregon are some examples. A study by the Oxford Journal of Medicine on the relationship between depression and explicit requests for euthanasia among end of life cancer patients, showed that "Major depression was not a major factor in explicit requests for euthanasia in end-of-life cancer patients in primary care. Further depressed mood was not associated with explicitly requesting euthanasia in this patient group". The patients surveyed were incurable cancer patients with less than a year of life expectancy left. In studies on the subject, there has yet been no clear link shown between incurably ill patients requesting euthanasia and suffering from clinical depression. 2. Terminally ill diseases can be properly researchedHere my opponent argues that because some currently incurable diseases have shown some promise in research and time expected to market drugs, patients should not be allowed to end their own lives. However the estimated wait time for a cure to most terminal illnesses(Certain types of cancer, AIDS, Sarcoidosis) is in the decades, not the single digit years or months that many terminally ill patients have left to live. A cure for every terminal illness is not even close to feasible in the next hundred years. So should patients all over the world who have only a few years to live, or even a few months to live be forced to go through their pain because in a hundred years, a better treatment might come into existence? This still all secondary in that one would still have the right to end their lives with a cure. One controls their own body and ending one's life for whatever reason they want cannot be morally regulated if it is not infringing on another's rights. My opponent can try to bring out reasons why one does not need to commit suicide all he wants but the fact remains that personal autonomy cannot be upheld with any restrictions on one's right to end their life.