Euthanasia

Consensual euthanasia isn't the taking of the life, the patient chooses to give their life and asks for help fulfilling their request. The life isn't taken, it is given. It is the taking of life that makes murder immoral, just like it is the taking of property that makes theft immoral, and it is the taking of someone's body that makes rape immoral; what is immoral is the forcibly taking, the violating of another person's body or property, the lack of consent is what makes it wrong. I'm only arguing for consensual euthanasia, no person but the patient should decide whether it happens to them and no one but the people that are assisting should force them to assist; it must be a free choice of both the patient and any doctors or anyone else involved. Although the life ends it is not taken; it is the taking of life not the ending of life that is immoral. The prohibition of euthanasia is actually a forcible violation of liberty and is immoral. It is a restriction of freedom, it removes a choice. It is the State telling a person and that they aren't allowed to make a decision regarding their own body and life. Banning euthanasia implies that a person doesn't own themselves and are instead owned by society or the state; it is a violation of liberty, choice, body, and life. Not only is euthanasia not morally wrong, prohibiting it is wrong. Euthanasia can prevent suffering. A person may decide that a condition will create too much pain or negatively impact some other part of their life too much for their life to be worth living anymore. By having an option of euthanasia they may choose to prevent that last part of their life. Their life as a whole could be better off even if it is ended early. Instead of the end of their life being horrible and degrading the overall quality of their whole life euthanasia can give a person a way to avoid the suffering at the end and preserve the quality of their life until the end. Prohibiting euthanasia is dooming some people to horrible suffering that they wish to avoid. No one should decide that someone else's life is worth living, but nor should anyone force someone to keep living; consensual euthanasia isn't deciding for someone else or forcing them to do anything, it is just an option that they may freely choose if they determine it to be their best choice. There are additional negative outcomes that can arise when people choose euthanasia in violation of a prohibition. I'm not arguing that it ought to be legal because people will do it anyway, I'm arguing that an additional reason why it should be legal is that when people do it illegally there are more negative things that come from it than if it were done legally; this is a similar to the argument that women would suffer additional risks of injury and infection from an illegal abortion than a legal abortion. One negative that accompanies only illegal instances of euthanasia is the quality of the death, since it would be a black market operation there wouldn't be the same medical standards to ensure the most painless death. Doctors that have worked hard for their licences wouldn't be likely to risk their livelihoods by performing an illegal procedure so people may choose to instead end their own life themselves or seek out a criminal to help them. If a family member chose to help and felt guilty afterwards they might not get counseling to help because they'd be afraid of persecution or negative stigma. This is similar to an argument to legalize drugs and if I was debating that I'd use the same sort of argument. I want to respect your conclusion as your summary and your last word in support of you case, however since you asked a couple direct questions of me in your conclusion (about how a person gets their value and if society can discard them if they are not valuable) I will just very briefly answer them. A person's worth is determined by how that person and other people value them. We should not get rid of them if society deems them no longer valuable, a person owns themselves and euthanasia should be their own choice. A person's value is determined by society and themselves, but a person's choice is only their own. Thank you for this debate. It was a pleasure to debate you and although I didn't change my mind of the subject, I have acquired a greater understanding of and appreciation for your side.