Assisted suicide should be illegal.

Thanks again to Pro for an intriguing debate. 1) The topic and burdens The topic requires that Pro argue against assisted suicide, and that I argue for it. That's all. Pro's case used to meet that burden. My case still does. The resolution does not define how we argue these issues. This debate could have focused on either my case or a comparison of our cases. Both are completely within the bounds of the topic. Deciding this debate requires an evaluation of the net benefits of our cases. If legal assisted suicide is more beneficial than Pro's case, then vote Con, even if my case is a net negative. As such, his burden isn't to show that assisted suicide is net harmful; it's to outweigh it with an alternative. If legal assisted suicide outweighs, then it should be legal to preclude the harmful alternative. Pro even admits that he has an equal burden of proof, but that requires that we both defend a single case. Hold him to that burden. 2) Pro's “cases” Our cases were stated in R2 so it doesn't matter what came before. Pro established that he was running “an alternative,” and specified that alternative as “make deadly drugs available to the public” for the first time in his third sentence, repeating it at the end of the round. If we care at all about what was said first as Pro does, then we should hold him to his single case as a result. Extend my #1: he continued to defend it, hold him accountable for it. Pro drops my #3. He requires that I can't even put my single case in a structure, let alone add extra cases or expand. Yet he has added an “implied” case, and markedly expanded his other case. This double standard cannot stand. He wanted a full case structure out of me, he certainly cannot just imply his, nor can he expand on a vague case. Pro's R1 requirements aren't exhaustive and don't excuse clearly unfair and unreasonable tactics. If Pro is able to argue both cases, he's able to argue for mass facilitation of suicide and against it at the same time. Pro also provided a tremendous amount of disadvantages that apply to his main case more stringently than they do mine (Pro drops those links), making his cases mutually exclusive by his own arguments. He's literally providing the reasons why he cannot run both together. They're inconsistent. One ice cream flavor doesn't negate the flavor of another, whereas these cases most certainly do contradict one another. Abuse based on fairness and reasonability alone is reason enough to vote Con. But if you don't want to vote here, you can at least hold him to his case, and require that it be weighed on its own merits against mine. 3) Definitions I'll quote Pro as before: “In assisted suicide, the doctor assists but the patient is the final causal actor in his or her own death. ” That's all I've ever argued for in this debate, even when Pro's tried to expand that definition. I haven't argued for suicide outside of the confines of the doctor-patient relationship – that's Pro's ground. I'm going to shift away from our format and focus on voters. I) In-Round Abuse This is the easiest place to vote Con. Pro actively expanded his case one round after presenting it, “giv[ing] me less rounds to refute his arguments than he has to refute mine. ” In Pro's own words, that's abuse. In doing so, he has also made his case non-topical, meaning Pro failed to meet the burden laid out by the resolution. Pro dropped both of these points. Either one is a unique reason to vote Con before even deciding whether Pro can run two cases – if he's engaged in abuse with either one of his cases, that's reason enough to vote him down. II) Solvency/Vagueness My vagueness points show that no company/agency would produce, distribute, stock or approve this drug. There's also no unique benefit to their availability. He has no solvency. All his case manages to do is make suicide attempts more deadly. He's dropped all of these points, and thus his case has 0 benefit and a major harm. However, my case has multiple benefits, achieved by ensuring that doctors can adequately see to basic patient rights and by helping countless secretly suicidal people who would otherwise end their lives, both of which Pro drops and both of which apply to both cases. Note that these benefits did come up in rebuttals, whereas Pro has no stated benefits to his altered status quo case. III) Lives I've proven that Pro's case leads to hugely increased death tolls. His case: a) allows suicidal individuals hiding their mental illness to continue pursuing death without help, b) ensures a higher success rate for each attempted suicide (which are far more common) by providing more effective means, c) is less effective at obtaining informed consent, d) facilitates a temptation to commit suicide that will increase the number of suicide attempts, e) allows widespread corruption by doctors whose support of assisted suicide will lead to numerous recommendations (and pre-approvals) that cannot be regulated, and f) creates a means for murder that cannot be effectively policed, allowing murderers to escape justice. As my case restricts access to individuals who are highly likely to die in the near future, it doesn't increase loss of life, whereas Pro's necessarily facilitates an increase by providing individuals who are not on the verge of death with deadly medication. Pro's slippery slope requires dramatic shifts in legality after implementation based on nothing but weakly shared logic. He presumes that voluntary euthanasia will be legalized after assisted suicide, and never explains why or how the legal barriers will disappear. There are two separate legal barriers to overcome: legalizing voluntary euthanasia and then, following the example of a single country, legalizing involuntary euthanasia. Pro's own reasoning regarding the responsibilties of doctors creates an ethical barrier to overcome as well. All are unlikely. Pro paradoxically argues that my case is both overly restrictive and expanding its inclusion. Even if Pro's right about expanding categories (it's unwarranted, even in R2, and ignores legal and ethical barriers), his case expands to all categories. Even if Pro's right that I risk reducing respect for some individuals, lost respect doesn't lead to any substantial harm. Not all life experience is equal, but as long as there is a basic respect for human life, which we both agree exists through inherent value, then the harms Pro states don't occur. He never explains why a partial loss of value justifies infanticide and murder – don't give him those links. IV) Roles of Doctors Both Pro's case (his main one) and mine make clear that some people should have access to efficient and reliable means for suicide. The difference between our cases regards who should be facilitated and by whom. Pro facilitates all individuals, regardless of their medical circumstances, which results in an increased loss of life. Pro also makes psychologists and governments the facilitators (neither of which are “moral institutions”, nor are any institutions empowered in status quo) and, in both cases, disempowers doctors. However, doctors have a basic duty to minimize suffering and seek informed self-determination. Pro absolutely denies them this capacity with dying patients, handing that task off to a bureaucratic government (or no one) with no such duty. I showed that medical benefits are moral goods. Beneficience requires that doctors do right medically by their patients and reduce suffering. Thus, ending suffering in terminal patients without hope for recovery is also a moral good. This applies to minorities as well, who may be escaping consistent and terrible pain brought on by the medical system that would otherwise perpetuate it. The consultations that ensure the patient is fully capable of informed consent are either minimized or absent in Pro's case, whereas mine ensures a doctor-patient dialogue. The doctor is held accountable for their prescriptions, and would thus be required to ensure that this dialogue results in the best possible outcome for their patients. There's not a point in here Pro didn't drop, and all of them apply to both of his cases. Pro still tries to access this point on corruption, but drops that both of his cases bite this harder. Pro would shift the duty of doctors solely to treatment (which has failed these patients) and recommendation (which has less accountability). This makes the incidence of abuse by doctors far higher in his cases. As for the right to refuse, taking someone off of life support still doesn't fit Pro's own definition of assisted suicide. Patients must administer the meds. It's the patient's choice whether they ask for these meds and whether they use it after they get them. They draw the line between care and lack of it. Pro drops this. I've provided specific, reasonable and logical criteria (not just consent) by which assisted suicides can be approved, none of which Pro challenges, and none of which are arbitrary. V) Equality/Freedom/Privacy All of these impacts remain nebulous, but if you do care about them, this is an easy place to vote Con. Pro presented a case that forces government regulation on individuals seeking suicide, exchanging individual doctors for huge bureaucracies that restrict their freedom, equality and privacy far more absolutely. Conclusion: Pro's attacks on my case are all conjecture. Slippery slopes, claims of risk and perceptual harms draw attention away from what's certain to focus on what could happen if things play out in a very specific (read: unlikely) fashion. All policy have risks, but those are secondary when the benefits are highly substantial and far more likely. My case has both. To limit the number of suicide attempts and reduce their successes, to ensure effective doctor-patient relationships and keep the focus on beneficience, and to see that dying, suffering patients can end their lives legally with dignity and without pain, assisted suicide must be legal. Pro's cases garner him nothing but harms.