Government should permit Euthanasia

Thank you cons for give a good arguments. I would give some arguments to take care of opps attack. In this argument, I manage to taking a clash in three arguments 1. What is Value of a life and how to value a. freedom of choice b. the right to value life c. euthanasia not a murder 2. How the cascade consequences would be less happened 3. How to taking care of some cases with Pro and Cons Proposal a, parallel cases 1. Euthanasia doesn't weakens societal value of Sanctity of Life. * I get the idea that life is precious and valuable. But, every people must died. No one can live immortally. How precious your live, are depend on how do you value it. It's matter of Choice. the one who can value their own life is your own self. In this case, the patient. If the patient feels that he is ready to accept death, and their family accept this decision, it's their problems. No one can judge them in morality because you are not the patient. Euthanasia is not a murder. It's a yes for taking someone's life. But, as you know, the condition of killing would be state as murder if the victim not accept death or by force. I just let the government to create a small help by creating a new regulation to permit Euthanasia within the procedure. Again, it's matter of choice, government permit it, you can use it if the condition are met. I also think that your new proposal about isolation and quarantine the patient are contradicting to your case. The way you did that are also let them died slowly. It's not the same with Euthanasia? You just give them plenty of time to the patient with no certainty of the patient get back healthy as a normal people. in this case, I see that you give a new solution that most likely agreeing to the pro side and with the less effective solution. To answer your question, "Does euthanasia save lives?" I would answer no. In my precious statement, I state that euthanasia means an action that intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. So, it does not save lives. Because the patient are already accepting death. 2. Cascading Consequences Involuntary euthanasia is not something that need to be afraid of. In hospital's ordinance, they state that if someone need to have an operation or not, depends on the patient and blood siblings or family acceptance. If the the patient already say yes (The priority of this procedure) so, it's fine to do so. If not, the euthanasia is illegal, because not in procedure. If illegal, they should be punished (the matter of fault). The punishment should be appropriate with the state obligation. I can take your goal is holds more life saving potential without devaluing societal ideals. But, how if they died slowly, they are suffering you know? you can take a philosophical based like that without knowing what exactly happened in society. 3. Parallel Cases * Nowadays, There are many cases about a sickness that can't be cure. their family have a lot of burden in taking care the patient as their own family, they also have a burden to taking care their own family (exclude the patient), they also need to be responsible to the patient whether if he died or not. Check this one story : a patient that have already reaching an age that he can be called as grandfather, have already sick and hospitals are give up to taking care of him. Your grandfather already told you that he is already happy to live in this world and have no attachment to this world. He accept to die. You are a middle age father who have a family to taking care of but your money would be spent a lot more to this no possibility of cure disease. You have no other option but to stick to the "societal value of Sanctity of Life Cons version", that if you do Euthanasia, it will be a bad thing and bla.. bla.. bla.. then, without any other choice, he spend his own money to let Hospital take care of him or let him slowly died in your house. In the end, you have spent a worthless time, money and burden in taking care someone whose already accepting death. (you can also find the cases like this one in "my sister's keeper" movie) This story shows that how no effective your ideas against the practical thing in the society. Maybe a religious man would doctrine you to be a good person in taking a high value of a people's life. But some cases, you can't be so religious. some action needs to do in this kind of problems. This also show that if government permit Euthanasia, this man could take the choice and not being in burden by the morality problems in society (because it's legal, so it is not a weird or fault thing in society (change of paradigm)), not being burden by the worthless effort with no gain at all. (no possibility to cure, patient accept death, choice can be taken or not) By this three arguments, I stand in my proposal that :"government should permit Euthanasia" one more time. Thank You.