Euthanasia should be legalized

== Rebuttal == (1) DefinitionsPro's changing his advocacy. He was arguing that euthanasia as "the painless killing of a patient (at their request) suffering from an incurable and painful disease. " This isn't limited to people unable to commit suicide on their own. This includes anyone with an incurable and painful disease. Don't let Pro change his advocacy now after he's argued the entire debate -- including his definitions in Round 1 -- that euthanasia is available to anyone with an incurable and painful disease. (2) SuicidePro's case hinges on restricting euthanasia to people unable to commit suicide. I argue that anyone who can communicate has the ability to commit suicide. If you can communicate, then you can refuse medical treatment, and you can refuse food/water. That's enough to commit suicide. The only way that suicide isn't an option is if someone cannot communicate. But if someone cannot communicate, then they're not able to request euthanasia, meaning that euthanasia isn't available to them. Thus, Pro's position that euthanasia is only available to those who can't commit suicide is incoherent, since voluntary euthanasia simply cannot be available to those who can't communicate. Pro's version of euthanasia is underinclusive. If euthanasia is justified on autonomy grounds (i. e. self-determination), then euthanasia should be extended to anyone who wants it. But in Pro's world, euthanasia is only extended to those who cannot communicate (i. e. those who cannot kill themselves). Thus, Pro's version of euthansia is underinclusive in that most people with an incurable and painful disease can't request euthanasia because they're able to kill themselves. I argue Pro's version of a euthanasia law is totally superfluous, since nobody qualifies for Pro's "euthanasia only for people who can't commit suicide" law. (3) Health ResourcesPro seems to misunderstand my argument. I'm weighing "lower waiting times" against "increased suicides" (i. e. more people choosing euthanasia). In weighing these impacts, there's two things voters should consider: probability and magnitude. The probability for increased suicides (i. e. more euthanasia) is higher than for lower waiting times because lower waiting times are a result of more euthanasia. I win probability. Increased suicides is also of greater magnitude. Lower waiting times has a marginal effect on the quality of healthcare, while increased suicides means more people dead, earlier, when they still had things to live for. More suicides means families left behind hurt by the suicide. My argument is about weighing "lower waiting times" against its necessary cause -- increased suicides -- and arguing that increased suicides outweigh lower waiting times. Pro also misunderstands my argument that economic matters shouldn't factor into moral decisions. The decision to request euthanasia should not turn on your feeling of being a financial burden. Pro's logic suggests that someone who's considering euthanasia should consider -- as part of their moral decision to commit suicide -- the resources they'll free up. That's extremely slippery logic that leads down a path to straight utilitarianism. In effect, it equates economic thinking with moral thinking. I'm arguing against utilitarianism, and I'm arguing that weighing goods like "life" against goods like "lower waiting times" simply shouldn't be part of a person's decision to commit suicide (i. e. to end their life). (4) ProhibitionsFirst, innocents charged for "assisted dying" aren't committing euthanasia; they're "assisting dying. " Second, these "innocents" aren't being convicted of anything, so there's no harm. Pro hasn't shown any harm to innocents, so there's no impact to this argument. Unless there's actual harm to innocents, Pro loses this argument. (5) RightsPro misunderstands the nature of euthanasia. The law isn't about granting or denying rights to patients. Euthanasia doesn't give patients a right to die -- patients are already free to die, by committing suicide, refusing medical treatment, and so on. What euthanasia laws do is empower doctors. I want to be clear about this. The right granted by euthanasia is the right to kill -- and it's a right given to doctors, not patients. I argue that the right to kill shouldn't be granted. I argue that, as a legal principle, there shouldn't be a right to kill (that's effectively murder), and that consent on the part of the victim shouldn't be a defense. Just as a contract regarding slavery isn't and shouldn't be recognized by the law, neither should the law recognize a contract where one person kills another who has agreed to be killed. That's simply not a right that the law should recognize. On the other hand, I agree with Pro that the law should recognize a right to commit suicide, and a right to refuse medical treatments. Those are valuable rights that preserve bodily integrity and freedom, and it's important to preserve those rights while keeping euthanasia illegal. == My Case ==(1) Suicide is and should be legal. That is the only right to die that the law can enshrine. Empowering people to intentionally kill another isn't a right and it shouldn't be enshrined in the law. (2) Pro's euthanasia law undermines equality by restricting euthanasia to certain people. The result is that euthanasia sends a message that some people's lives are expendable and other people's lives aren't expendable. In effect, some people are deemed inferior to others and therefore their life isn't give the full protection of the law. Pro doesn't dispute this. Instead, he just argues that the argument is invalid because of assisted suicide but that doesn't solve his problem. Assisted suicide -- at least as I propose it -- should be extended to all (plus I dropped assisted suicide, implying I'm not supporting it for this debate, and only supported it because of a misunderstanding). Pro also agrees that human life is valuable in and of itself, so any law that allows killing of someone people demeans the inherent value of human life, thereby demanding equality. (3) Pro hasn't given any reason to believe the slippery slope won't happen. I've given both a theoretical and empirical reason to believe it will: (a) the logic used to justify euthanasia (easing someone's suffering; lower waiting times) seems to justify involuntary euthanasia, and (b) empirically, there's evidence the slippery slope is probable because it happened in the Netherlands. Pro gives no counters other than simply calling my argument a "fallacy" and a "red herring," but simply calling my argument a "fallacy" and "red herring" doesn't refute it. Pro needed to actually explain why my argument is theoretically and empirically wrong by giving analytic and empirical reasons of his own. Pro didn't do this, so I win this point. (4) Pro says the "rate of euthananized people is too small for this to have an impact on the research. " Pro also says the "impact" is too speculative. If that's true, then apply that logic to Pro's "lower waiting times" argument: euthanasia has no effect on waiting times because the effect of euthanasia on the economy is negligible, and moreover, the impacts are too speculative to have any relevance in this debate. Pro's argument about "research" not factoring into moral decisions simply isn't the reality of the world we live; I agree that'd be nice, but as things are, research and development is dictated by the economy, the flows of demand and supply. == Conclusion ==Euthanasia undermines equality, corrupts the medical profession, deprives suicide of meaning, and leads to a number of unintended consequences (including involuntary euthanasia). The alternatives are much better. The status quo, where euthanasia is simply illegal, is a much better option than euthanasia. On the other hand, making deadly drugs available to everyone is better than euthanasia as well, since it promotes Pro's value -- autonomy -- more than under my Pro's model. My proposal has all the benefits of euthanasia, but it also has other benefits, such as not undermining equality, not leading to involuntary euthanasia, and not corrupting the medical profession. The key problem with euthanasia is that it empowers doctors to intentionally kill patients. And just as contracts for slavery aren't allowed, contracts allowing murder shouldn't be allowed. Again, thanks for the debate, Pro.