Assisted Suicide can be morally justified in most cases.

I'm going refute my opponents case then move on to mine. First off, Assisted Suicide includes the fact that the patient has given that person permission to kill him/her, and the only thing stopping the patient from dying is the fact that the person he/she has asked is unwilling. Just wanted to put that out there. Contention I: Killing can never be morally justifiable. The act of killing is defined as cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly. This act of causing death of another person is immoral no matter what the circumstances. Furthermore, assisted suicide is the intentional killing of another person, which, by law is murder. Just because someone wants to die, does not justify the act of killing them. Refutation: Even if killing is bad, assisted suicide may not be. There is a small distinction between the 2, and I want to make that distinction now. When you kill someone, you don't have their permission. When you assist someone in suicide, you do have their permission. I'm going to say that the consent the patient gives is enough moral justification. Also, law should have nothing to do with morality. The law is not the measure of morality. I agree, if someone wants to die, it may not always justify killing them. Those cases would be the exceptions to this topic, which is that Assisted Suicide can be morally justified in MOST CASES. In most cases of assisted suicide, the patient has very good reason to not want to live anymore. Imagine yourself, constantly in pain, suffering because there is no way to get rid of the pain. You will live with the pain for the rest of your life. You cannot enjoy life because of the pain. You are terminally ill, and there is no cure for your ailment. Is there really any reason you should want to go on living like this? Is there any reason you should want to live this life filled with pain, both physical and emotional? I think not. In reference to your Kant card, I'm going to say that it is indeed possible to morally justify using another person as a means to your own end. If you are unable to do it, wish to do it, ask someone else to do it for you, and the other person is ok with it, I believe that there should be no reason you should not be allowed to die, as long as there is enough reason to do so. B) I never once mentioned that you to ask your doctor to do it, and I never once said that it had to be your doctor who killed you. There are many ways to kill someone, many of which do not involve a doctor. Back to my own case. 1. Again, I don't think that the law should be a factor in this debate. The law is not the measure of morality, so we cannot use it to judge whether something is moral or not. Also, you misunderstood me on my first point. We do not have the right to stop someone from committing suicide. We also do not have the right to stop the person who is going to kill the patient saying, no, you cannot kill this person, even though he has given you every right to do so. That is wrong. The reason it would be wrong to rob a bank is because that hurts people other than yourself. We do not have the right to hurt another person, unless we have their consent. I believe that that part, the consent, is what justifies killing them. I would not help someone go on a killing spree, because I know that a killing spree is wrong because we are killing people without their consent. If we had the consent of every person, and there was ample reason to do so, then we would be justified in killing them. We cannot extend a killing spree to assisted suicide because there is one main difference; one has the consent of the victim, and another does not. 2. Again, you are twisting my words to fit your case. I am not saying that we should go around killing any human we want. My point was that why should animals be allowed to be put out of their misery, and why is it that we are willing to help an animal out of its misery because we know it will die soon, so we kill it painlessly so that it will not be in pain any longer. Why is it that we are willing to do animals the favor of getting them out of their misery, without their permission, and we are unwilling to kill another human being for the same reason, they are miserable, their lives are full of pain, and WE HAVE THEIR PERMISSION!!!! They want death! Death is a welcome change to their life. Why should we refuse them this final wish? 3. Again, you are twisting my words. I am not claiming a superiority between humans. Just because someone is handicapped, it does not mean we should kill them. If they are stuck in a hospital bed, in constant pain and suffering, never able to get a single moment of rest because it hurts too much, then I believe we have the right to kill them, BUT only with their permission, and request. Everyone deserves the right to live, and we can only lose that right when we WILLINGLY give it up, and allow someone to kill us, because it hurts too much to live. Ethnic Cleansing: Again, there is no reason that should be justified. Assisted Suicide is not Genocide. I am not claiming that a person has the right to kill all the Jews, just because they are Jews. If there was a person who happened to be a Jew, and was terminally ill and was going to die no matter what, and wished to end this cycle of pain and suffering, I would agree with that person, and if they requested that I help him kill himself because he is unable to, I would help him. Not because he is a Jewish person, but because that person should not have to continue living in a cycle of pain and suffering. Again, my opponent is handily taking the words I say, and twisting them in such a way that they seem to support his case. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. My points are valid, as I have just proven, and my opponent has forgotten one part of my argument that makes my case work, and makes his not work. Throughout his entire speech, he is mentioning things like genocide, killing sprees, just to name 2, and is claiming that my arguments support these things. This is not the case. My opponent has drawn this conclusion from the fact that my arguments support killing someone. He conveniently forgets to mention that all of my arguments include the fact that WE HAVE THE PATIENT's PERMISSION to do so. Also, there is ample reason for that patient to want to end his life, and because we have the patients permission, we have more than enough reason to do so, I believe that Assisted Suicide can be Morally Justified in Most Cases. Thank You