Assited Suicide

I hope this will be both entertaining and educational to all involved. So the resolution at stake is: Assisted Suicide can be Morally Justified. This topic asks us the question; can assisted suicide be morally ok? I argue that yes, indeed it can. My opponent argues that no, it never will be morally justified. The reason my opponent has to argue the whole topic, meaning everything it encompasses, is due to the wording of the topic. I was very specific in wording this topic. So I only have to show at least some instance where assisted suicide is ok. So, to arguments: 1. Assisted suicide involves the consent of the victim. If the victim has a very valid reason to ask for death, we should have every right to assist them in fulfilling their wish. Here is an example. Bill is sick. He is terminally ill. He will die in a month at the rate he is going, even with all science helping him. Bill is in constant pain and suffering, due to his disease. Bill wishes for it all to end, because he realizes that there is no other option; it is between a month of pain and suffering beyond belief and then dying, or dying now painlessly. He chooses to die now, by a means of his choice. He requests that his doctor give him an overdose in medicine, resulting in Bill's immediate death. The doctor sees Bill's argument, accepts it, and decides that he will help him. No where in this story has anyone done anything wrong, and in fact, the doctor does the right thing by respecting Bill's decision. 2. Assisted suicide is not killing. True, the victim loses his life. But it is not killing if the one who is taking the life is willing, and the victim is willing. If there is mutual consent, then the action cannot possibly be wrong. Example: Me and Bob are exchanging goods. I give him an apple, and he gives me an orange. There is mutual consent between us. No wrong act is being committed. Lets change the situation. I steal Bob's orange, and leave an apple for him. In this case, I was wrong to steal Bob's orange, since the orange is his property, he has the right to do with it what he so chooses. 3. (Patient's control of his/her own life) Continued from above: Now lets apply this example to the debate. In the doctor( you can substitute anyone you like) and patient example; The patient asks for the doctor to take the patients life. The patient has every right to do so. The patient's life is exactly that: the patient's life. No one elses. The patient has control over what he/she wants with his or her life, and that control extends to the lack of life, or death. The patient has every right to ask for death. So we have determined that the patient is moral in asking for death. Now, the doctor is a little more tricky. He is not the patient. He does not have a say over the patient's life. However, in the case of assisted suicide, I argue that the doctor actually isn't controlling the patient's life. The doctor is merely carrying out the patient's request. If the doctor were to refuse the patient, and order the patient to not ask anyone anymore, and force the patient to live through all means possible, then the act would be wrong. Conclusion: My opponent in advocating that assisted suicide can never be morally justified, must state that it is right for the doctor to refuse the patient's request and extend his own influence into the patient's life. My opponent must argue that the doctor is morally justified in controlling the patient's life, and is morally justified in forcing the patient to live, even when there is a good reason for the patient not to want life. Also, I want to make a clarification that I fear might be apparent in my arguments. Just add this on to my speech wherever appropriate. The doctor has the right to refuse the patient's request, because the doctor still has the right to control his own life. However, the doctor does not have the right to stop the patient from asking anyone else, or force the patient to live. Thank you. I await my opponent's response.