Government should permit Euthanasia

I conclude that you throw in 3 Rebuttals : 1. Con Solution About Isolation * It's such an ideal solution that i've heard to. Okay, i don't know what happened in the first world country, maybe people like you or the other people who lives in there can easily say that because government are have a regulation of free or maybe a cheap fees to treat patient in the hospitals when they are sick or an accident happened. But, it just not happened in the Third world country. In my state, Hospitals beg patient to pay before the treatment, (excluding the emergency accident), if you are staying in the hospitals, you gotta paid for more money, if you want to do an operation you need to make sure bring 25% of Deposit first before do the job, etc. THese kind of thing just stop them to do these isolation thing and they mostly will be treat at home with the doctors coming to home (it's a way more cheaper than in the hospitals). If you are in this kind of situation, the patient containment would be out of procedure, because the patient are not willing to pay (if they poor) and stay at home to died. Maybe i can give some example : A spread through air disease like chicken pox happened to a child. in logic, the child need to be contained inside an isolation room right? but not in the third world country. If you are poor and your kids have any kind of disease, they will just put your kids inside a public room hospitals, (contain Maximum 25 patient each room) They can't do any isolation because the capacity is not being able to let them stay for long. This is parallel with a problem where if someone who in a dangerous spread disease inside the hospital, they can't use this method unless there are some donation or someone kind would help. (source : http://m.patiekspres.co... -> just translate it with google translate, haha..) 2A. I think the Cons have misread my arguments. I do say that the Government have a power. But, the power that Government have in this case is not to control. I have said that the power the Government use was just a power to provide the Regulation for people to used. In your example about that Gulag forced labor camp is nothing to do with this case. It is a labor camp that under Government control, which Government would do that kind of thing, because of the government obligation is targeted for their own purposes. which we know that their purposes is not under this kind of life or death problem in society. But that's about how the government want they died. It's a PRISONER. Not a kind of thing like Euthanasia. 2B. CONTRADICTION?? I think that your evidence about this Gulag forced labor camp is Contradict with your previous and last Solution. You say that "Gulag Forced labour camp" is give a bad effect. You say that your solution are : Isolation, not in a way of slowly death. Now i will show you how it contradict. First, Gulag forced labour camp is have the same effect with the isolation or the pull-the-plug solution, which is let them slowly death. The difference is the prisoner have a bad condition to live, and the isolation or pull-the-plug have a good condition to live. But, in the end, it's still the same that you choose to let them slowly died in peace. But i think it doesn't proof that he would be not died in pain. If you see in this Euthanasia, it will not be a let-slowly-death occur, but instead to take the patient life without any pain, and it also will be in peace to, because the patient already volunteer to let the profane go. 3. ANOTHER CONTRADICTION You first said about you would believe in sancity of live. To defend this argument, one should being able to protect the life until the patient died. But by creating a solution like Pull-the-plug is likely to approve that by approving the message of death by a patient (Voluntary death), we could do something about it. It doesn't matter if you said that it's different between you do Euthanasia or Pull-the-plug. But it still take the people's life by doing action right? The differences is : Euthanasia is a direct action, and Pull-the-plug is indirect action. But it still an act to taking someone's life. -> i will add the condition need to take someone's life : 1. There are a living being 2. One Knows that there is a living being 3. Have the intention to taking the living being's life. 4. Do the action 5. The living being died. In this diagram, you already accepting Euthanasia like i do. Restatement : 1. I already giving a reason why the Euthanasia would be a good solution and should be permitted and also not in problems with those 2 first problem (Sancity of life and will not happen a cascading consequences). 2. We both know that it's a problem but both side seems to having solution. one support permit of Euthanasia, and one support a natural death. 3. It will harm the actors in the problem, but Con seems not to care about the practical situation and start looking about how the system is so easy to do. If there are such an easy way to do, this motion would not be exists. 4. In the end, COn seems to believe that there are no other way than doing Euthanasia, but COn just misdirect the word into something different but actually have the same intention with mine. So, in the end, the Euthanasia should be permit by government to solve the issue. Thank You.