Euthanasia should be legalized

a. Definition I am very disappointed that my opponent claims that I've changed my advocacy, when I haven't. I can't accept this argument. I quote my first statement in Round 1 "I argue that Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized." My opponent admitted his misunderstanding in Round 2 stating: "I didn't realize my opponent was arguing for assisted suicide -- the resolution said euthanasia specifically -- so I'll drop this point." However, I stated that my argument "applies to those who don't have the means to commit suicide otherwise." So did I change my stance in Round 3 as my opponent claims? This is a misunderstanding. I argue that: If a patient can commit suicide, they should have assisted suicide (receive pills). (My opponent agrees) If a patient can't commit suicide, they should be able to be euthanatized. (My opponent disagrees) So in Round 3, I was concentrating my rebuttal on the second part where there is a disagreement. I will do the same in my closing argument here. I want to remind the reader that the purpose of Euthanasia is more about the purpose (dying) than the method. b. Inability to communicate? My opponent argues that anyone who can communicate their ability to commit suicide should be able to commit suicide. He claimed that they can deny medication, food or water. While this is theoretically possible, it's practically one of the worst forms of deaths! I already showed terrible example such as "Kelly Taylor suffered so much pain that she starved herself for 19 days." [1] 19 days of starvation, and it still didn't work. This can't be acceptable in any way or form. c. Underinclusive? My opponent claims that my view is underinclusive. He argues "If euthanasia is justified on autonomy grounds (i.e. self-determination), then euthanasia should be extended to anyone who wants it. But in Pro's world, euthanasia is only extended to those who cannot communicate" There are two problems with my opponent's claim. First, I never said that it should only be extended to those who cannot communicate, but to those who don't have the means themselves. My opponent is assuming that communication and ability are the same, and they are not. Second, I remind the reader again that euthanasia is about the purpose which is dying. I argued that because the others have the ability to die through assisted suicide, then euthanasia is not necessary for them (not do they care about it). However for those can't even take the pills, euthanasia is their only choice (Please don't tell me dying from starvation is an option!). By denying them euthanasia, you are denying them their right to die. d. They had something to live for? My opponent argues that "Lower waiting times has a marginal effect on the quality of healthcare, while increased suicides means more people dead, earlier, when they still had things to live for." But I ask the reader, according to whom? Who decides that they still have things to live for? Who decides how life is ought to be lived? Shouldn't this be their own decision? Who gave us any right to decide how anyone must live his or her life? e. Empower doctors? My opponent claims that euthanasia empowers doctors. This is incorrect, euthanasia empowers patients who want to die! f. Slippery slope? My opponent really disappoints here when he says that "Pro gives no counters other than simply calling my argument a "fallacy" and a "red herring," but simply calling my argument a "fallacy" and "red herring" doesn't refute it." However, his argument is in fact a red herring and I showed examples of how that is the case. This refutes his argument! Conclusion I thought that my opponent's conclusion is a perfect example of how much he misunderstands euthanasia. He states: 1. Euthanasia undermines equality 2. Corrupts the medical profession 3. Deprives suicide of meaning 4. Leads to involuntary euthanasia 5. The alternatives are much better However, my opponent is wrong in each of those arguments. Euthanasia: 1. Doesn't undermines equality. Without euthanasia, there's no equality and those patients are oppressed 2. Doesn't corrupt the medical profession. It's consistent with the modern Hippocratic Oath (See round 2) 3. Doesn't deprive suicide of meaning 4. Is different than involuntary euthanasia 5. There are no alternatives (unless you want them to starve themselves for 19 days or more!) I ask the reader to examine the evidence. I will highlight the main reasons that euthanasia should be legalized: 1. Patients have the right to die and self determination according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2]. Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression 2. Wasted health resources and public funds. Health resources are scarce. To subject patients to pain, agony, loss of autonomy against their will, while at the same time preventing others from accessing these resources is absolutely ridiculous! 3. I would like to reiterate what I said earlier. "I personally, due to my religious beliefs, don't support euthanasia, assisted suicide or suicide in principal. [But I think euthanasia should be legalized] because I realize that I don't have any right to deny them their rights, even if I disagree with what they decide to do." I want to thank my opponent for a very good debate. I truly enjoyed his arguments, even though I haven't changed my stance on the subject. Thank you Con. [1] http://listverse.com...[2] http://www.un.org...