we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives and a terminal illness

Requesting distinct definitions of the terms "tortured lives" and "terminal illness" are certainly relevant, and Pro should reconsider using terms he or she refuses to even articulately define. What exactly these words mean make a large impact on the debate. Various issues in people's lives, such as depression, can make these people consider themselves to be in a torturous life. Yet depression is easily treatable with therapy, change of diet, or brief use of drug. What distinguishes a non-terminal illness from a terminable one? When a patient has a day, a month, a year, or a decade left to live? Human beings themselves are terminable. The fact that spontaneous remissions and regressions occur [1] illustrates that medical professionals cannot be certain how long someone has to live. It also completely ignores that a medical breakthrough could occur that gives the patient a much longer time to live. This means that a doctor would be able to kill a human being over that person's desire to end their life instead of using their expertise to treat the patient. That's why being specific on defining a "tortured life" or "terminal illness" is so essential; being ambiguous on what these terms even are creates the ability and possibility for liberal applications of euthanasia as a means of treating a patient to lead to abuse of the system (or create an immoral system). The objection with Pro's second round argument is how Pro appeals to the fact euthanizing dogs is commonplace, so doing so to humans should also be acceptable. As members of society, we should not consider having our physicians assist someone to fulfill their desire to die. The desire to end one's own life is not rational. Suicidal ideation is oftentimes a major sign of depression or psychiatric disorders that should be treated over terminated by allowing the suicide to succeed. One cannot consider their own death itself with a sound mind except not desiring it to happen. So why exactly should we not allow physician-assisted suicide? Dozens of countries give their citizens a duty to rescue law, and failure to take any measures to rescue another stranger in peril can lead to civil or criminal penalties in most of Europe and Latin America. Further information on this subject can be found on Wikipedia. Other relationships exist, such as parents are obligated to protect their children from harm (even self-inflicted or masochistic harm) when the children are minors. This legal principle of trying to save each other from peril is generally based off of the Golden Rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". However, having one allows physicians to bypass these basic principles by letting them kill patients engages in special pleading by saying it is permissible for someone take their own life under certain circumstances. In this case, this certain circumstance is having a medical professional, who is likely sworn to do no harm to patients, be the one who kills you. Someone who hangs themselves in their closet killed themselves; a doctor who gives someone a lethal pill killed their patient. This would, of course, contradict the patient's freedom of choosing to commit suicide with a physician's help. The issue, however, is more complex than that. Forcing a doctor to euthanize is against the doctor's freedom. As a libertarian and a classical liberal, I believe it isn't wrong to have freedom, and an individual has the right to life, liberty, and property. But allowing euthanasia makes doctors tacit killers, and killing human beings is an easy point to draw the line where it is right to reject one's freedom. That's what the existence of laws and the State attempt to do: prevent people from fully expressing their freedom when that choice it can come to harm others. Also, as a libertarian, I do not want to give the State the ability to allow citizens to kill each other more than it already does (through murder, negligence, euthanasia, etc.). One misjudgment of a human life is unfortunate and tragic, but institutionalized ones are potentially catastrophic. Blackstone's formulation of letting ten guilty persons go is better than causing an innocent person to suffer shows that one misstep involving killing someone is too grave of a price. One involuntary physician-assisted suicide is too many to be dismissed as being "part of life". [1] http://noetic.org...