assisted suicide is wrong

Thanks to my opponent for this debate. I hope this is a great debate, and will not end the same way our last one did. I'm just going to put the same thing up as last time, and we can continue from there. There will be some changes however... Topic Analysis: This debate is about an action being right or wrong. I will argue this topic from several points, and I am sorry if it gets a little confusing. So the topic matter is: Assisted Suicide is Wrong. My opponent is affirming the topic, and I am negating the topic. What this means is that my opponent believes that assisted suicide is wrong, period. I am merely saying that assisted suicide is not wrong. I don't necessarily have to say it's right, I just have to say its not wrong. So if I can prove that assisted suicide is not wrong, in any case, then I have fulfilled my burden. My opponent must prove that assisted suicide is wrong, period. No exceptions. Definitions: Assisted Suicide: suicide by an individual facilitated by means or information (as a gun or indication of the lethal dosage of a drug) provided by someone else aware of the individual's intent (Merriam Webster). Also, in today's world, Assisted suicide has also come to mean that the death of that individual is done by painless means, either by lethal overdose, or a painless shot to the head. Wrong: something wrong, immoral, or unethical (Merriam Webster). So the interpretation to be had here is that this topic is one about morality, and what is right and wrong. So, to arguments: 1. Assisted suicide involves the consent of the victim. If the victim has a very valid reason to ask for death, we should have every right to assist them in fulfilling their wish. Here is an example. Bill is sick. He is terminally ill. He will die in a month at the rate he is going, even with all science helping him. Bill is in constant pain and suffering, due to his disease. Bill wishes for it all to end, because he realizes that there is no other option; it is between a month of pain and suffering beyond belief and then dying, or dying now painlessly. He chooses to die now, by a means of his choice. He requests that his doctor give him an overdose in medicine, resulting in Bill's immediate death. The doctor sees Bill's argument, accepts it, and decides that he will help him. No where in this story has anyone done anything wrong, and in fact, the doctor does the right thing by respecting Bill's decision. 2. Assisted suicide is not killing. True, the victim loses his life. But it is not killing if the one who is taking the life is willing, and the victim is willing. If there is mutual consent, then the action cannot possibly be wrong. Example: Me and Bob are exchanging goods. I give him an apple, and he gives me an orange. There is mutual consent between us. No wrong act is being committed. Lets change the situation. I steal Bob's orange, and leave an apple for him. In this case, I was wrong to steal Bob's orange, since the orange is his property, he has the right to do with it what he so chooses. 3.(Patient's control of his/her own life) Continued from above: Now lets apply this example to the debate. In the doctor( you can substitute anyone you like) and patient example; The patient asks for the doctor to take the patients life. The patient has every right to do so. The patient's life is exactly that: the patient's life. No one elses. The patient has control over what he/she wants with his or her life, and that control extends to the lack of life, or death. The patient has every right to ask for death. So we have determined that the patient is moral in asking for death. Now, the doctor is a little more tricky. He is not the patient. He does not have a say over the patient's life. However, in the case of assisted suicide, I argue that the doctor actually isn't controlling the patient's life. The doctor is merely carrying out the patient's request. If the doctor were to refuse the patient, and order the patient to not ask anyone anymore, and force the patient to live through all means possible, then the act would be wrong. Conclusion: My opponent in advocating that assisted suicide can never be morally justified, must state that it is right for the doctor to refuse the patient's request and extend his own influence into the patient's life. My opponent must argue that the doctor is morally justified in controlling the patient's life, and is morally justified in forcing the patient to live, even when there is a good reason for the patient not to want life. Also, I want to make a clarification that I fear might be apparent in my arguments. Just add this on to my speech wherever appropriate. The doctor has the right to refuse the patient's request, because the doctor still has the right to control his own life. However, the doctor does not have the right to stop the patient from asking anyone else, or force the patient to live. ------------------------------------------- This is where I branch off from the normal sense of a debate and argue meta-debate, or debate about debate. I'm trying out this technique, and I'm expecting mixed results. However, not all my eggs are in one basket. All my previous arguments still stand, and I can win from either these arguments I'm about to make, and the arguments I have already made. I'm going to make a sylogism. Assisted Suicide is Wrong. (this is the first basic premise) Wrong immediatley puts us in the realm of morality. (Definitions, and common conception.) Morality is subjective. (No moral truths, morality changes depending on context.) What my opponent believes to be wrong may not be wrong for me (Leading from previous) He believes that AS is wrong. (his case) That is impossible to prove, since morality is subjective. He cannot objectively prove AS wrong in all cases, no matter how hard he tries. There will always be a gray area, and that defaults to my side. Since it is impossible for him to prove morality in this case, we default neg. Good old logic. Yay. I await my opponents reponse