Euthanasia should be legalized

Rebuttal I made three arguments to support my contention: 1. The right to die and self determination My opponent and I both support assisted suicide, and the right to commit suicide. But as he mentioned in round 2, we disagree whether euthanasia is a basic right. He argued that "under an autonomy principle, we'd have to honor requests to be euthanized from all competent individuals". I want to explain to my opponent that he appears to be misunderstanding what euthanasia is. Euthanasia only applies to those who don't have the means to commit suicide otherwise [1]. Euthanasia is less about the method (how it's done)… but more about the purpose (the right to die). The dying person couldn't care less about who would euthanatize them or how. They just want to die peacefully. By denying them the right to euthanasia, they are essentially being denied the right to die… they are denied the right to self determination… they are denied the right to autonomy. My opponent argues that "Pro can't justify euthanasia through autonomy, since his advocacy restricts the availability of euthanasia. " The reason that euthanasia shouldn't be allowed to everyone else is because most people have the ability to commit suicide. As I mentioned earlier, euthanasia is about the purpose (dying) not the method. There's no need for euthanasia for the average joe since they can commit suicide. For example, a Winnipeg woman travelled to Switzerland to take lethal pills and die [2]. There was no justification for euthanasia for her; however I hoped that Canada would have allowed her to receive the lethal drugs. 2. Wasted health resources and public funds My opponent challenges my claim that euthanasia would "reduce waiting times and improve the overall quality of care. " My opponent didn't agree or disagree that waiting times will be reduced (which logically would improve the quality of care). But he argues that economic matters shouldn't factor into moral decisions. This is a straw man argument. I agree with my opponent that economic matters shouldn't factor much into moral decisions. But what I argued was: "To spend these resources to forcefully preserve the lives of patients against their will is ridiculous. " Health resources are scarce… By denying those patients euthanasia, you are hurting two birds at the same time… the patient that you are denying his or her dignity to die, and the patient that you are not providing a hospital bed. How moral is this? 3. Prohibition targets innocents My opponent challenged my arguments with straw man arguments. He said for example that "in the Marie Fleming case, nobody innocent was ever prosecuted. " I agree, but that's not the point. Marie Fleming's partner didn't kill Marie because he was threatened with 14 years in prison. There are numerous reports were innocents were charged for assisted dying [2] [3]. Other points a. Pain My opponent argued that pain alone is not the main reason for euthanasia. I don't argue that pain is the central argument of my claims. The three main reasons shown by my opponent are: loss of autonomy (93%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (89%), and loss of dignity (73%) [4]. This doesn't change anything. My opponent also claims that "we shouldn't change the law out of pity. " This is a clever statement, but it's misleading. It's not out of pity that we give people human rights and the freedom of opinion. I personally, due to my religious beliefs, don't support euthanasia, assisted suicide or suicide in principal. It's not out of pity that I think euthanasia should be legalized. It's 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. This is not about pity. b. Equality (1) My opponent claims that "telling disabled people that doctors are legally allowed to kill them but not allowed to kill others clearly sends a message that they're expendable". This argument is invalid because disabled people have the ability to kill themselves (through assisted suicide which my opponent supports). Euthanasia only applies to those who don't have the means to end it on their own. (2) My opponent argues that "equal protection of the law only applies if human life is valuable in and of itself". I don't disagree. However it doesn't follow that the protection of the law means the suppression of their right to end their lives. c. Slippery Slope My opponent argues that I "didn't address the slippery slope argument". He also doesn't agree that it's a red herring fallacy for this debate, which in fact it is the case. He claims that it’s an empirical reality that non-voluntary euthanasia will follow by citing one example. This is a fallacy. This is similar to saying that "All people will become gamblers after going to the casino because that's exactly what happened to my friend". I'm sorry con – I don't accept this argument at all. I can discuss it on a separate debate. d. Hippocratic Oath I was disappointed that my opponent brought the ancient Hippocratic Oath and not the modern one [5]. That ancient oath, which no one follows, starts with this: "I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius the surgeon, likewise Hygeia and Panacea, and call all the gods and goddesses to witness, that I will observe and keep this underwritten oath, to the utmost of my power and judgment. " You couldn't possibly believe that modern doctors follow this. The modern oath (shown in my source [5]) doesn't contradict euthanasia. e. Refusal to commit suicide My opponent states "If a patient can commit suicide, but chooses instead to have a doctor euthanize him or her…etc" I don't disagree with my opponent! For those cases, they should be subscribed lethal pills (as Con also suggests). We are not in disagreement. f. Euthanasia discourages research? My opponent argues analytically (not with empirical evidence) that euthanasia will discourage research. Without empirical evidence, you can only speculate. I argue that there should be no impact because the rate of euthanatized people is too small for this to have an impact on the research. There's no reason to believe that all, or most, terminally ill people will choose euthanasia (I certainly hope not! ). I also find it interesting that my opponent places moral decision above all when he says "economic matters shouldn't factor into moral decisions". I could also argue that "research shouldn't factor into moral decisions! " But what disturbs me about the "analysis" is that you're denying people their rights out of fear of some hypothetical impacts. This is irresponsible. It's more responsible to study the impact first before justifying denying people their rights… not the other way around. g. Suicide My opponent argued that terminally ill people "have an option of refusing food and water as long as they can communicate their wishes". This is horrific! To die out of voluntary hunger and thirst is the better option is shocking. In my earlier round, I showed a lady who starved herself for 17 days before quitting! I can't accept this argument. h. Deadly drugs available to everyone My opponent argues that "we should make deadly drugs available to everyone". We've already agreed that assisted suicide is the better option for those who can kill themselves. However, for those who wish to die but have no means to do so, this is not a solution and we're back to square one. Remember… euthanasia is about the purpose (which is the wish to die), not the method (how to peacefully die). [1] . http://www.ethicalrights.com... [2] . http://www.righttodie.ca... [3] . http://www.ncregister.com... [4] . https://public.health.oregon.gov... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...