Euthanasia should not be legalized.

My opponent begins by saying that we are not free to live as we please; we must abide by the rules that govern society. However that is an appeal to authority. The law has been wrong many times throughout history, such as when we had legal slaves or women were inhibited from voting. We should not use the law as a moral reference but rather make ethical propositions about what the law should be. Second, Pro claims that bodily autonomy is a myth that ought not to be respected. He goes on to say that when an individual takes their own life, it hurts other people, thus how we treat our own bodies does affect others so our lives should somehow be regulated by others. However that is a nonsensical proposition. If I choose to get a tattoo, my mom might not like it, but it is my body and my choice. If I get pregnant, some people might not want me to keep the baby, but it is my body and my choice. That is both a moral and legal standard. Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognize the right to bodily integrity [1]. Pro is arguing that other people should dictate how we use our bodies. This would effectively make us slaves. If Pro is correct and we do NOT possess stewardship of our own bodies, then rape would be perfectly fine, because how other people wanted to use our bodies is somehow more important than how we choose to use our own bodies. Obviously this is a shoddy standard. We possess the right to bodily autonomy because any other standard means our bodies can be dictated by other people's desires. Next Pro questions who gets to decide the qualifying factors of personhood. He considers it "appalling" that philosophers have debated this notion, but this is meaningless rhetoric. Philosophers have debated the right to life and concepts such as God. Strong theists might find it "appalling" that many people/philosophers are atheists, but that does not make their beliefs any less valid. My opponent thinks there is a logical disconnect because some people make the voluntary choice to be euthanized. .. which is true, and because some people that are euthanized lack the sentience to have self-awareness and choose. .. which is also true. The two are not mutually exclusive. Someone can make the choice to be euthanized while their brains are fully functioning, and then have that go into effect once they are no longer sentient. For example, Brittany Maynard famously brought the euthanasia conversation to the mainstream when she decided that she wanted to end her life before dying from the natural causes of brain cancer [2]. Maynard knew that there was no treatment that could save her life, and the treatment she endured would ruin what little time she had left. As such, she fought to "die with dignity" and made that conscious choice, like so many others in her position [3]. However euthanasia should not only be for those who can consciously consent -- I've argued (and will continue to explain) why this should be an option for someone who is in a vegetative state, especially if their power of attorney wills it to be so. But nonetheless, the resolution of this debate makes no stipulation about when and where euthanasia ought to apply. I can argue that euthanasia ONLY be for those who consciously consent and still win this debate. My opponent claims that the possibility of euthanasia "already assumes that human life loses value in unconsciousness, and loses all value when unconsciousness is the preamble to death. These terms are based in utility and function, and they forego any thought of unalterable human value. " It's important to note that value is subjective. Yet indeed if one is unconscious or not sentient, they lack self-awareness or any indication of being alive or knowing the self at all [4]. Unlike fetuses that are not YET sentient, euthanasia is typically reserved for those who will never again become sentient. In the last round, I proved that in most cases it was reserved for the end of one's natural life. Pro claims that he does not favor the prolonging of torture or suffering, yet that is exactly what he is proposing. He says that he simply does not trust bureaucracy to make decisions about life or death. However I've argued that people can voluntarily opt to be euthanized once they reach a certain stage in their life, or people assign loved ones to be medical power of attorneys. This means people select others they trust with their lives to make medical decisions on their behalf if they are not able to do so. This happens all the time when people go in for surgery or have life threatening illnesses that might require others to make medical decisions for them [5]. My opponent then goes on to make some claims about Belgium; however, he lists two sources and never cites them. But I looked up the information and not surprisingly, Pro leaves out some very important information! In 52.7 percent of these cases, the patients were 80 years of age or older. The decision to euthanize was not discussed with the patient in 77.9 percent of the cases because he/she was comatose or had dementia [6]. Furthermore, Belgium passed the Euthanasia Act in 2002, which states that only voluntary euthanasia is legally permissible [7]. Therefore, all of the non-consensual euthanasia that occurs in Belgium is illegal. This means euthanasia would occur even if and when it is illegal. It makes sense to keep euthanasia legalized, as any person who wants to die would simply find ways to kill themselves - and probably not in a way that is peaceful. Moreover, "Although annual euthanasia cases are steadily multiplying in Belgium. .. instances of euthanasia without explicit consent from the patient have actually decreased since 1996" [6]. Pro is simply not giving all of the information about what's happening in Belgium or the Netherlands. Dutch Penal Code Articles 293 and 294 have established very specific guidelines for when euthanasia is appropriate. Pro says that he is "unconvinced" that people who are not allowed to opt for euthanasia are suffering. That is patently false regardless of Pro's conviction. Indeed many people who choose euthanasia do so because they suffer tremendously. Worse, the number of people experiencing pain in the last year of life actually increased by nearly 12 percent between 1998 and 2010 [8]. Pro also says "There is a distinction between refusing medical care, and having another human kill you out of mercy. " In reality there is no difference in terms of effect. By refusing medical care, you are choosing to die. By choosing euthanasia, you are also choosing to die. The difference is one choice involves pain and suffering, and the other does not have to. The other option can be quick, painless and as least traumatic as possible. Pro writes, "If a patient wants to refuse life support, it is illegal for the doctor to ignore the request because that in fact would be forcing an extended and unwanted lifespan onto that person. .. " yet Pro is calling for a forced extension of unwanted lifespan to people who ask for euthanasia. My opponent makes two points in conclusion of the last round: first, he says that people lie to themselves about what they want without really thinking it through. This is an unsubstantiated bare assertion with no proof. Second, he says that not all family members (or the state/doctors) have your best interest at heart. Once again, we give our loved ones rights over our medical choices assuming we may not always be conscious to make them ourselves. This is a common procedure in our everyday healthcare and legal system. Thus we shouldn't assume a random or selfish family member or doctor is making the call, but a trusted loved one that was selected by the patient in question to carry out their wishes on what to do with their own bodies. SOURCES: . http://tinyurl.com...