Voluntary euthanasia should be legally available to terminally-ill people in the United States

I hope that this debate will be enlightening to the ourselves as well as all who take the time to read it. First, I think that it would be a good idea to establish what we are talking about when we use the term "euthanasia". Euthanasia falls into two broad categories, those being: a) Passive Euthanasia b) Active Euthanasia Passive Euthanasia is an alternative name for withdrawal of treatment - when a doctor withholds life-sustaining treatment. [1] Passive Euthanasia is legal in most jurisdictions, as courts have ruled that sane patients have the right to deny medical treatment even if that would result in their death. My opponent's resolution reads "Voluntary euthanasia should be legally available to terminally-ill people in the United States". Therefore, I am assuming that when my opponent says 'euthanasia' he is talking about a practice that, in the United States, has yet to be legalized. This means that he cannot be referring to passive euthanasia as a patient's right to deny medical treatment is an established principle and thereby "legal". So, then he must be referring to active euthanasia, which is not legal throughout the United States. Active euthanasia (also referred to as a doctor-assisted suicide in the United States) is when a patient asks their doctor to provide them with drugs that will shorten or end his or her life [1]. With that accomplished, I can move on to challenging my opponent's arguments. My opponent says that we have several rights among them being rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". He then claims that the "right to die" is derived from these rights. I, like my opponent, do agree that we have several rights and one of them is the right to bring about an end to our existence, to die. However, this does not make active euthanasia a right. In order for euthanasia to take place, two parties must be present one being the patient and one being a physician. The physician is the one who will ultimately bring about the patient's end by administering the drugs required to accomplish that end. The patient, if he is in his right mind at that moment, has every right to make such a request. However, the doctor has no legal obligation to grant a patient such "treatment". In fact, if he were to grant such "treatment" than he would be charged with murder and prosecuted under the law. Doctors are not death specialists, doctors are people who are suppose to help us recover from poor health, not bring about our death. To require a doctor to kill his patients if they requested would be a breach of his rights, as he is being forced into an agreement that may be against his or her wishes (which is similar to slavery). My opponent might be thinking that euthanasia is medical treatment, and thus if the patient requests it than the doctor has to provide it under the law. However, he would be mistaken. Death (euthanasia) is not an established medical treatment as it does not do anything to advance the health of the patient in question. As for my opponent's claims that "forcing" patients to live, even if it is against their wishes, is akin to slavery I would simply have to disagree. No one is preventing these "slaves" from taking their own lives, and they may do so at anytime. A medical profesional is just not allowed to assist them in the matter. If a terminally-ill patient can muster up the strength to commit suicide on his own (e. g. hanging, slashing of the wrists) then he may do so. His "right to death" is not being abridged, as death is still an option to him. My opponent also speaks of a "vocal minority" of people in the United States that are preventing any type of euthanasia law from passing or even being considered, however it appears that Math needs a lesson in mathematics. When my opponent provided the link to the Gallup website he did not specify which poll he was referring to at the moment. Was he referring to first or second poll. I will assume that he is referring to the second, because after all it is a lot more in-depth and polled 1,200 people as opposed to 475. In this poll only 33% are in favor of euthanasia in all circumstances, while 67% are for some sort of regulations to be put on the practice of euthanasia. So, I do not see where why my opponent refers to them as a "vocal minority". I would like to thank my opponent for such an interesting topic and hope that we all learn something during the course of this debate. [1]: . http://news.bbc.co.uk...