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

Apologies for the late response. I was almost finished typing this up and my laptop ran out of battery, none of it saved so I've been forced to retype it. I'll start with the defense of my contentions. (1) Whilst, it is true that not all terminally ill patients suffer, the issue cannot be completely dismissed as irrelevant. The issue of suffering does affect terminally ill patients and I do not doubt that there are terminally ill patients who do not suffer however I do believe that the issue still has relevance to this debate. Just because an issue does not affect everyone, this does not mean that it has no significance. There are similarities between assisted suicide and euthanasia, except with assisted suicide religious questions are more likely to be raised. In assisted suicide the patient is ultimately the killer of themselves, whereas 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. It is controversial whether or not people are free to commit suicide. I agree and know for a fact that there are no charges for the failure to commit suicide in the UK and USA however, I cannot say the same for other countries. Since this debate is not specific to anywhere in the world, this argument is invalid and has no impact on the resolution. To back up this point, not only is it illegal in specific countries, it is also illegal in specific religions (e.g Christianity). (2) This argument has been misinterpreted by my opponent. My opponent has accepted the full resolution of this debate and as a result of this, this means that they accept that the person has had full mental health checks. This ultimately means that they can think properly and understand situations properly. I never said that anyone should be allowed to force people to do so. I said that they should be able to choose who kills them, but if the person refuses then it is unlikely that they will choose to force them to so. By that statement, my opponent has missed my main point which states that they should be able to determine when they should die. This does not conflict with the libertarian position since my opponent has just made a misinterpretation of my point. (3) As I have said previously, in specific religions and parts of the world suicide is not legal and it is also extremely difficult to commit suicide since most hospitals carefully monitor patients and do not allow them to just walk out of the hospital or jump out of the window. Given that these people have been checked (mentally) then it will be difficult for them to refuse medication and let themselves die - even if they are not religious and they are in a country that allows them to do this. (4), (5), and (6) Since my opponent has not refuted any of these points individually, I will use this part of my defense to comment on the refusal of medical treatment. Medical treatment is not always available (especially for terminal illnesses with no cure). The treatment is usually pain relief and without this their lives will not shorten in any significant way. In fact, it is probable that their lives will be prolonged due to the immense pain (in some circumstances) - this will cause the time passing to feel longer than it actually is. I know that my opponent has said that they do not feel like they need to respond to the points made regarding suffering patients because this is not all terminally ill patients however I would like to see my opponent's alternative for what they would do for suffering patients (who will live for the next 20 years, for example) who are begging to die. What would you do? Rebuttals (1) Death, like life is not entirely a private matter. The government intervenes with our lives - from the moment that we are born, we are constantly debating the pros and cons of state intervention in our lives. Whether we like it or not, we need the Government and depend on them. The government funds our education for under 16s for free. They help with health (free in the UK). Neither of these is free of the state or those people around us. We elect a government to help us to make moral decisions. The government provides the regulations and the security. Not everyone will have the right to euthanasia. (2) No, it is not the case that you always go down a slippery slope. Everything can go down a slippery slope. What we need to do is put down a clear boundary. You could argue that there is a slippery slope from eating a lamb chop to eating a human being. (3) Again, there is a possibility for abuse in everything. People always break laws. We have laws against murder and theft. Just because people break these laws it doesn't mean that we should abandon them completely. (4) I come from the UK and this is not the case. As I have mentioned on multiple occasions throughout this rebuttal - this debate is not specific to any country, state or area. These statistics are false in other places. I request that you keep your arguments nonspecific to any specific place. (5) You state that euthanasia transforms doctors into killers. This is true - however not using euthanasia is making doctors torturers. Torture is worse than murder and I am sure that this can be agreed upon by both me and my opponent. If you know that you are going to die in 3 months and you know that death is a fact would you want to live? There may be a 0.1% chance of survival but do you want to take that chance? Watching your family and yourself being tortured (both emotionally and physically). (6) It doesn't create 2nd class citizens. It promotes rights for all under certain conditions. Equality is not everyone being the same. Equality is being offered the same rights. I didn't say that doctors should be able to say: "Autism. Lets kill him. " for example. I said that people who have no quality of life and know that they will die should be able to have the right to choose. That is very different from making disabled people and people with a low IQ be killed. IQ is insignificant and irrelevant. Steven Hawkings approves of this theory and due to the character limit I will provide a source to what he said. Conclusion To conclude, I believe that I am winning this debate for a number of reasons. a) My opponent has attempted to dismiss many of my points as irrelevant. I have proven that they are in fact very relevant to the debate and since he has provided no actual rebuttals to these points I am winning on those. b) I have not dismissed any of his points and have refuted all of them. c) I have defended my arguments and have refuted his arguments as well.d) I am the only one of the 2 of us to incorporate sources into our arguments. This makes my argument more credable for voters when reading this debate.Sources http://www.goodreads.com...