Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill

Pro makes three fatal errors. First, Pro focuses entirely on justifying euthanasia for patients who suffer. This undermines Pro's case, because Pro concedes that "not all terminally ill patients suffer." Thus, Pro fails to uphold the resolution with respect to terminally ill patients who don't suffer.Second, Pro concedes that the government has a right to intervene in our lives, to helps us make moral decisions, and to provide security. This undermines the vast majority of Pro's offense, as his libertarian framework crumbles the moment he accepts the legitimacy of government intervention in morality.Third, Pro concedes that there's risks of abuse/error. At the same time, Pro fails to explain why euthanasia is preferable to suicide, to refusing medical treatment, or even to assisted suicide. Each of these options allow a person to end their life without imposing severe risks of abuse/error.Vote Con for either of these reasons. To be thorough, the rest of Pro's arguments are addressed below:(1) SuicidePro suggests that we should legalize euthanasia but punish failed suicides. Or at least that seems to be what Pro's arguing. Of course, that argument is bizarre. Pro's C1, C2, C3, and C4 all support a right to suicide. It makes no sense to say we should legalize euthanasia but prohibit suicide. Pro says suicide isn't legal everywhere. This might be true, though I'm not sure. Pro didn't offer any sources to back up his claims that suicide isn't legal everywhere. Either way, who cares if suicide is illegal in some random parts of the world? Suicide is beyond the reach of the law; you can't punish someone who is dead. Besides, the issue in this debate isn't what the law is but rather what it should be. And no matter how many laws prohibit suicide, the question is still whether those laws are right or wrong.This means I'm free to advocate a right to suicide as an alternative to euthanasia. And all of Pro's arguments support a right to suicide, so don't let Pro argue that we should legalize euthanasia because suicide is illegal. That argument is simply absurd.(2) Assisted SuicidePro's argument to prefer euthanasia over assisted suicide isn't compelling. Pro states: "it is a controversial issue on whether or not euthanasia (where the doctor ultimately kills the patient) is considered to be suicide - as a result of this euthanasia is by far a better option. The legalization of euthanasia will benefit a much larger group of people than it will if assisted suicide is legalized."This argument is bizarre. Pro suggests that more patients will choose euthanasia over assisted suicide because euthanasia isn't suicide. But why should it matter how many patients will prefer euthanasia to assisted suicide? This debate isn't about the personal preferences of particular patients; the debate is about whether euthanasia should be recognized as a right. And just because more patients will choose a certain way of dying over another doesn't mean that way of dying should be embodied as a human right.Furthermore, Pro's argument is nothing more than an assertion. And it's far from self-evident that more patients will choose euthanasia over assisted suicide. On the contrary, lots of patients will choose assisted suicide over euthanasia because they prefer suicide to murder. And to be clear, Pro's advocacy is the equivalent of condoning murder, as euthanasia is nothing but the intentional destruction of another human being's life. Why will more people prefer murder to suicide? And even if more people prefer suicide to murder, why should we be encouraging the terminally ill to end their lives? The message Pro sends is that some people aren't just expendable, they should be killed by their doctors. The slope to involuntary euthanasia isn't far when you apply that logic.(3) SufferingPro's argument rests on the notion that people who suffer should be allowed to end their lives. And Pro explicitly asks for an alternative to euthanasia if suffering patients want to end their lives early. Well, those people are free to commit suicide. And they're free to refuse medical treatment. And in extreme cases, they can even request terminal sedation (assuming their religion doesn't allow suicide or euthanasia). Or you could make lethal drugs freely available in pharmacies, provided that you have mental heath checkups and are capable of rational thought. There's lots of alternatives to euthanasia for people who want to end their life early as a result of immense suffering.The point I'm making in this debate is that in no cases should doctors be allowed to intentionally kill their patients on the basis of a determination that their patients are experiencing immense suffering. Doctors have alternatives to relieve suffering, including terminal sedation (i.e. put to sleep but not killed). The problem with allowing euthanasia via suffering is that it leads to involuntary euthanasia. And as I explained in R2, the empirical evidence bears this out (e.g. in the Netherlands). This happens because euthanasia is predicated on an utilitarian calculus that weighs suffering against a person's right to life. If the suffering outweighs, a doctor is allowed to intentionally kill the patient. Of course, this utilitarian calculus allows a doctor to decide their patient should be killed even if their patient wants to keep living, as long as the patient's suffering outweighs other factors. The reason this happens with euthanasia is because euthanasia assumes that human life has instrumental value rather than intrinsic value. If life has intrinsic value, it's never okay to intentionally destroy it. But when you start distinguishing the value of individual lives on the basis of instrumental factors, such as suffering, or mental disabilities, or being terminally ill, it suggests that certain instrumental factors must be present to give someone's life the full protection of the law. When those instrumental factors are absent, a doctor has the right to kill a patient. And in extreme cases, a doctor arguably has a duty to kill them, to end their suffering, even if the euthanasia is involuntary.(4) ReligionThe law should not turn on the religious view of a few. There may be religions that believe suicide is not allowed but euthanasia is. Those religions should not dictate public policy. Pro refers to Christianity. That's a bad example, because Christianity wouldn't allow euthanasia or suicide. This example actually works against Pro.(5) DiscriminationPro says that's specific to certain places, like the United States. This puts Pro in a bind: he either accepts that this debate should take into specific locations, in which case this argument is fully extended, or Pro admits the debate isn't specific to location, in which case all his arguments about suicide and medical treatment not always being available are irrelevant, since we're not talking about specific places but rather a general notion of what public policy should look like.(6) CorruptionPro admits that euthanasia turns doctors into killers. In response, Pro says prohibiting euthanasia turns doctors into torturers. But that is simply untrue. The doctors aren't imposing pain on anyone. They're simply refusing to kill their patients. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't give their patients pain medications, or allow their patients to commit suicide, or allow their patients to withdraw from medical care. The doctors aren't required to prolong a patient's life or to stop them from ending their own life. The only requirement is that doctors don't murder their patients, because that corrupts the medical profession.(7) EqualityPro says "equality is being offered the same rights." Yet Pro argues that only the terminally ill get the right to euthanasia. Everyone else gets the right to having their lives protected from intentional destruction by others. Either way, a critical rationale for equal protection withers and drops away, as a result of treating life's value instrumentally.