Tim's debate tournament: Euthanasia

I feel like my opponent misunderstand what I wrote. I never claimed that I had made two distinct points. In the beginning of my opening case, I bolded the statement that personal autonomy and prohibition on euthanasia were at odds. I then proceeded to respond to two objections that one could bring to that statement, namely that they are not at odds or that we do not have personal autonomy to begin with. Before I move on to refuting my opponent's points I will defend my own standing point that one cannot respect another's personal autonomy while denying them the right to end their lives when they wish to. The only evidence my opponent brings to the contrary is that "every male in the United States at the age of 18 have to sing up for "selective service", where he signs over his body to the U.S. government in the time of war." Put simply, the argument against personal autonomy goes that because one group regularly violates it, it never really existed. Imagine for a moment that a man steals your wallet from your packet. You promptly wrestle with him to get it back and as you do this he repeats over and over, "What's wrong? That guy over there just got mugged too! Everyone has their rights violated and things stolen so we must have never had those rights or property to begin with!" Would any person in their right mind agree with this? Furthermore, in my original argument, I asked my opponent why he thought that a casual observer had more of a right to another's body then they did, providing that you are not hurting anyone else with your body. I searched through my opponent's round and found no answer. He only continued the mantra that no one in their right mind would want to die when they don't have to and so patients requesting euthanasia should be stripped of the right. But now on to my opponent's case.Patients requesting euthanasia are depressed.My opponent writes that "I, and many medical experts believe that they wouldn't want to continue being Euthanized after they were curedof this depression." But why is this even relevant? I am not arguing that it is wise to request euthanasia. I have never been terminally ill or in immense pain to want that. I am arguing that even if someone's decision could be harmful to themselves in the long run, no one has any right to stop them, so long as they do not hurt other's in the course of killing themselves.Furthermore, I can wholy concede that the majority of euthanasia requesting patients are clinically depressed and still be in the right. It is because of the classification of depression as compared to other mental disorders. Depression, while having serious effects at times, is not the same as schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders where people cannot always be held responsible for their actions. If depression-afflicted patients can really not be allowed to make decisions regarding their own persona affairs, then we must also barr depressed patients from making other life decisions that they would not make in their right minds such as getting married, having children, or choosing a career. What is the difference. In both cases, I might disagree with their choice and so I use the fact that they suffer from a mood disorder to control their own private actions.On a further note, the fact that my opponent tried to use the fact that people's personal autonomy is already violated by the government makes his main point completely unnecessary. He writes that "After that, your body isn't your own, for you cannot end your life(which isn't allowed anyway) or decide not to fight, for you will be persecuted and arrested." Notice that in the darkened part of the sentence, my opponent mentions that it is already illegal to end one's life. So by his own rationale against personal autonomy(that the military alrady violates it), his main point is made completely irrelevant. For if the draft proves we are not autonomous agents then the fact that suicide is illegal further show that we have no right to kill ourselves regardless of our psychological state. So my opponent must either drop his main point(which doesn't help his case anyways since it doesn't autonomy supersedes mental condition) or drop his argument against personal autonomy(which would again make his first point irrelevant).Terminally ill diseases can be properly researched.My opponent argues that I did not provide reason for one to believe that terminal diseases would not be cured for decades to come. But of course, as this is his own point, the onus is on him to show why terminally ill patients will start being cured before they die of their disease. His two sources were the fact that over 1/2 of cancer drugs in the last few years have made it to the market within half a year(irrelevant since I am talking about cures for these diseases, not something to help the pin or slightly elongate their life) and the fact that clinical trials are needed for cures or treatments to be found.On this last point I do agree. Drugs need to be tested before they can be administered but I do not see how this point is relevant. My opponent brought no evidence to suggest that all or even the majority of terminally ill patients would request physician assisted suicide. Patients who do wish to live and keep on fighting would no doubt volunteer for clinical trials as they do now. Legalizing euthanasia would not automatically make them suicidal.My opponent ends by asking why something that "would hinder medical research and end human life"? Of course my opponent brought zero evidence to suggest that the legalization of euthanasia would make all terminally ill patients suicidal. Also, this particular life ending practice is not the same as murder or even abortion. This is a wholly voluntary act by someone who surely has the right more than anyone. My opponent's only reason why they be able to is because they are not in their right mind and so are incapable of making decisions. But do we take away depressed people's licenses? Do we allow them to marry, to have children, to live just like the rest of us? If my opponent wishes to counter this, he must drop his faulty rationale of mental incompetence and concede that his main point has been completely refuted.I urge voters to see past my opponent's argument that the depressed cannot properly make life decisions or that we're right on the verge of curing terminal diseases. We must accept that people have the right to kill themselves, whether we agree with the decision or not and that legalizing euthanasia is not going to cause every terminal patient to end their lives. My opponent has brought no valid reason to either show that prohibition of euthanasia can coexist wih personal autonomy or that I have more of a right over your body than you do.