Humans Have an Inalienable Right to Death

I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts on the matter.It is first and foremost necessary to identify what an inalienable right is. I will then argue that death belongs as an inalienable human right. If my opponent has qualms with my semantic version of an inalienable right then I'd suggest he explain his objections. The audience would then have to judge upon whose version is more appropriate.An inalienable human right describes the capabilities of an individual to perform a specific set of actions without having to receive the sanction of others. In our case, this translates into the idea that an individual may act to end his life if that is indeed what he desires. The natural continuation of this means that he/she cannot face repercussions [for a failted attempt] nor can he be restricted by others. I would like to specify that this does not permit the individual to cause harm to others through his actions, because he is only entitled to ultimate ends that do not interfere with the rights of others.ArgumentAn individual ultimately decides upon what is good for himself. By measuring the worth and consequences of different objectives, the individual makes his own decisions about what he's going to do. No other man has control over the individual's decisions, even though they might try to influence them. The individual is thus responsible for his own outcome. From all the outcomes that he may available before him, he'll choose the one that's closet to his personal motivations. My argument therefore depends on the legitimacy of an individual's motivations, and whether or not other individuals can interfere with those motivations.Living amongst others forces us to make certain compromises. For example, though I may want to walk on your property, it has been determined to your right to forbid me from doing so. Even if I had the most noble of motivations I would have no choice in the matter. But the right to death cannot make room for compromise, for no other individual can have presidence over an individual's decisions to do as he wishes with his own life. A human being cannot choose death without appropriate motivations, and to deny a person the choice of death is to accuse him of improper motivations. But who's to say that death is such an immoral choice? Why do your beliefs about proper motivation dictate what he can or cannot do with his own life? He isn't interfering with anyone else's rights to act as they please, and is only doing what he deems as being the right course of action.Abridged version of my argument:P1. A person's motivations towards his own life are what result in his actions.P2. An individual's motivations towards wanting to cease living is what leads him towards committing suicide.P3. An individual's motivations are sacrosanct, since they are their own sanction for the ultimate end that they are pursuing.C. Therefore, no other individual(s) can interfere with another person's decision to commit suicide, since doing so would be asserting their authority over that person's right to determine what is best for them.PS: P2 opens the door for my opponent to discuss God. This would be extremely tangential and counter-intuitive to the direction of our debate. The question at hand is whether society can obstruct an individual to commit suicide, not whether God will punish him.PPS: Clarification: A person cannot hurt another individual because it interferes with their motivations.