Euthanasia should be available for use.

To start, allow to start off by explaining what Euthanasia is. Euthanasia is synonymous with mercy killing, it is the act of ending one's life as a result of an incurable or irreversible disease. Now, that may seem like a morally good thing, however, we need to delve deeper into all the possibilities that can arise should Euthanasia be available. I would like to point out that in many countries around the world, countries that are less developed than ours or equal to ours, have made the use of Euthanasia illegal. Why? Well, numerous reasons exist actually. I, however, will only be presenting the two I feel are the strongest. For example, Voluntary Euthanasia, which is what my opponent is debating for, can and most likely will lead to Involuntary Euthanasia. For clarification, if doctors who consented to willfully euthanize a patient who has requested to be euthanized. then what would stop anyone who could be treated successfully from ending their lives? Many treatments in medicine today cause a worrying amount of pain and can be extremely uncomfortable. Chemo therapy is one such medicinal treatment. Cancer is an almost certainly lethal disease, most people don't survive it. Yet, a lucky number manage to fight it and survive. The process is painful though, chemo therapy is one of the surest ways cancer can be treated, but it is a very uncomfortable experience and can make those being treated want to simply give up. But it works, as of today, chemo therapy is one of the closest and most effective ways to treat cancer patients. If the person has a chance, to survive and see another day, but they had to suffer, then they should fight. We all feel pain, but only through suffering can we reach paradise. It would be an involuntary use of euthanasia to mercy kill a patient who has a fighting chance. Another reason why Euthanasia should not be used would be how it undermines medicine. My father is podiatrist, a foot doctor. He has seen people die from the things that can happen in a person's foot, and he has treated many different diseases, injuries, and disorders. He tells stories all the time, a patient of his one day had a horribly infected foot, gangrene was forming and the infected area had spread to his leg and his lower torso. The patient begged for him to just end the pain, my father instead tried to save him. He managed to keep the man alive after spending extensive amounts of time with him, and he only lost his foot. They both still talk, I've met the old man, he has talks of my father as though he were a superhero. The purpose of the story is to show just how easily people can make the decision to give up when something can actually be done. Medicine has come a long way since the 18th century, new methods of treatment exist for nearly all diseases and disorders, to beg for euthanasia when something can honestly be done is taking medicine for granted. It even denounces medicine, making it look like it has no use anymore, and that the only true way of recovering is to end one's own life. Overall, Euthanasia is the easy way out. Yes, many diseases and disorders may be incurable, irreversible, but to allow the Euthanization of the few would lead to movement of the Euthanization for all. Euthanization for those who don't truly need it would occur, and the shunning of what medicine can actually do and its possibilities would arise. While euthanasia can be shown to be morally correct, if these are the factors that can come into play as a result of euthanasia, then isn't it truly morally wrong? My opponent has shown the value of Deontology, the ends justify the means. But does the process of how we reach the end matter? I await my opponent's counter arguments.