Euthanasia, given by request in terminal illness, is morally acceptable.

I am against the resolution that euthanasia, given by request in terminal illness, is morally acceptable. 1. The ambiguity of terminal illness is a reasonably insufficient reason to terminate life. Wikipedia states, "Often, a patient is considered to be terminally ill when the life expectancy is estimated to be six months or less, under the assumption that the disease will run its normal course." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The key factors in diagnosing a patient as terminal is time and reasonable assumption. Therefore, it is fair to say that the terminally ill will probably die if the disease runs it's course, but it is not logical or rational to say that the patient will absolutely die. It is important to note that that "the six-month standard is arbitrary," underscoring the impossibility of predicting the patient's fate. It also important to point out that a patient with a deadly disease expected to live for many years is NOT terminal. For example, "a patient with a slowly progressing disease, such as AIDS, may not be considered terminally ill because the best estimates of longevity were greater than six months." So the question becomes, which factor justifies assisted suicide? The fact that the patient is doomed to die or that he/she is doomed to die soon? Presumably, my opponent appeals to the latter, which will beg the question, how soon is too soon? Is one year soon enough to request death or too long? Six months and one day or five months and 29 days? Any appeal to imminent death is logically arbitrary and should be seen as insufficient in excusing euthanasia, given the burden killing a someone brings upon both the requester and the executioner. --------------- 2. It is unacceptable to request someone else to kill you. Consider for a moment Sue Rodriguez, who was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 1991 and was killed via assisted suicide in 1994. (http://www.cbc.ca...). While her plea for the legalization of assisted suicide Canada was debated in the courts, no one considered how completely irresponsible her request truly was. After the court ruled against her she said, "If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?" She insists that she owns her life but refuses to own her death. If human life has value and belongs to the individual and not to others--as this society overwhelmingly maintains--then by logical extension we own our own deaths. But to place the burden of killing another human on someone else to meet your own needs is the height of hypocrisy. If Sue Rodriguez wanted to die, then she should have accepted the burden herself instead of insisting society's responsibility to do it for her. --------------- We cannot begin to imagine the pain and suffering faced by those deemed terminally ill, but an appeal to emotion cannot save the day. Killing another human being for any reason carries weight, both legally, psychologically, and--for many--spiritually. In other words, the request is not to be taken lightly, and simply using an arbitrary guess as to one's fate is not enough to assist in their death. If one want's to take their own life, then they should take responsibility for that which they claim is their right, and dispatch themselves without assistance. Anything else is hypocritical and ultimately immoral. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.