assisted suicide is wrong

I'm going to save characters and jump right into it. PLEA FOR HELP Your refutation was that the problem is that 89% of the folks didn't want AS 35 years later. First off, you offer no source for any of your statistics. Your stie one shows different arguments, only one of which you have used. So we can disregard that argument, since you could have just made that up. Also, I am not dead set on the patients life being horrible. I am merely addressing one situation of this topic which can be justified. Second, I can drop this entire argument, assume it is true, and still win this debate. You said it yourself. Assuming your argument is vaild, which it isn't, since you haven't justified your claim with any reasoning, other than statistics you may have made up. But that aside, your "statistic" says it. 89%. Not 100%. You said it yourself, you have to prove it in 100% to win. So that remainig 11% is justified. Thank you, you have just defeated yourself. SELFISHNESS ISSUE: I have not overlooked your selfishness issue. I have addressed it. If you didn't see it, here it is again. If the patient truly has a good reason to, we should not stop them. You claim that they would be selfish in doing so. But you forget that I have provided some ways it would be better for the family. Read my argument. GOOD DOCTORS: I find it quite amusing that you do not realize that the remaining 11% should be allowed to have AS, and you want to stop it. You really contradict yourself here. But it looks as if I will again have to restate my meaning in an understandable way to my opponent. He talks about emotional pain being one of the reasons, and you stated a statistic saying 89% people don't want it later. However, he forgets about the 11%. He forgets that it is possible for people to be in constant pain emotionally and physically. And therefore, since he doesn't address those people who deserve AS, he has defeated himself. Also, his cure for emotional pain is pumping the person full of medicine until they don't know themselves, they are so addicted to morphine and anti depressants. MY STORY: Bills predicament isn't the worst case scenario. It is what happens. A scenario is a scenario. My point is, that he is causing so much pain to those around him, and to himself, that he truly has a valid reason to wish for death. You cannot just not address this valid point and hope that the voters won't see it. YOUR STORY: I agree that is a very nice thing. There is a happy ending. However, this guy doesn't really have any reason to want death. He has every chance of rejoining society, as he does. This guy doesn't have much reason to want AS. However, again, you forget about those people who have a good reason to want it. Take a person with cancer. It is severe. No cure. The guy's going to die. Chemotherapy isn't helping, its too late. This guy is confined to a bed, is fed through a tube, and can barely speak. He is in pain, and living hurts. He has no chance of recovery. He will die in 6 months. His family has to pay the bills, and it clearly hurts them financially. It also clearly hurts them emotionally, since they have to watch this person slowly die, knowing that they can do nothing about it. My opponent will say that this person should do something uplifting, to make him feel better. Well I ask my opponent, how much can you do, confined to a bed, unable to speak, fed through a tube, and in constant pain? What kind of uplifting things can you do? SELFISHNESS 2. Ok, so here my opponent believes that his argument about the patient's selfishness flies, and here's his justification. He thinks that the doctor and the patient disregard the family, and that is selfish. He says that they family will be pressed into emotional turmoil, and that is selfish. What is more selfish, to not let your loved ones die in dignity, or to force them to live out their painful death? My opponent is assuming that the patient doesn't think of the family, and the doctor doesn't either. But this is a bad assumption. Again I argue that with a valid reason, AS can be justfied. Part of that reason would be the family. Of course the patient is going to take into account the family. I agree, not thinking about those around you is selfish. But if in AS the family actually benefits, for reasons I have posted and for reasons I'm going to have to defend, then AS is justified. FINANCIAL PAIN: No. I am saying that as much as we would like to say otherwise, money does matter. It shouldn't be the turning decision, but its a factor. Example: Jill is ill. She cannot eat without feeding, and cannot walk. Her family wants to help her. Their choices are between an electric wheelchair that costs $2000, a regular wheelchair that costs $1000, and a fully automated wheelchair, which functions as a bed, desk, and everything. You could live out of that chair. It costs $10000. The family, with tight finances, decides to go with the regular wheelchair. The point of this example is that finance is a factor. As much as the family would love to supply Jill with the $10k chair, its just not feasible. Now apply that to my case. As much as the family would love to spend money to keep a terminally ill patient alive (which isn't always the case, as in my whole argument), sometimes its just not feasible. EMOTIONAL PAIN: My opponents response is that they won't have to see the patients death. WRONG. The patient is going to die, whether or not the family likes it. It is the choice between a death with dignity, and by your own choice, or a death by slow painful loss of life, as my opponent advocates. VALUE OF LIFE: Sorry about the no-response. I have been working on an off of this debate, and the formatting got messed up. The autosave doesn't always work. So as to the argument. It isn't cowardice to face death with dignity. Just because you do not wish to live a life of tortured pain and sorrow doesn't mean that you are a coward. If anything, it means that you are a brave person, since you are willing to face death in the eye and choose your own end. EXAMPLES: 1. Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. However, my first analysis still applies. The drug addict had no reason do what what he did. The patient does have a valid reason. So again, this example doesn't work. 2. Ok, then same response. MURDER: Again, you have not grasped the argument at hand. The doctor is not choosing who dies or lives. He is merely complying with the patients wishes. You could think of it like the patient acting through the doctor. LAST PARAGRAPH: No. Life is valuable. If it is my life, I can do with it whatever I choose, provided I have a good reason. Life is not useless. If anything, by accepting AS, you respect life. We can still define those terminally ill and with good reason to want AS as still living. They still have life. In AS, those patients show respect to life, knowing that their lives have good reason to be ended. They are accepting that their life is about to be ended, and it should be ended in their own way, not by some painful end. CONCLUSION: Ok, so at the beginning of the round, I stated that my opponent must show that AS is wrong in all aspects, in all times. My opponent agreed. So in theory, I could drop his entire case, and still win, provided that I show an instance where AS is justified. Here is where I do so. Throughout this entire debate, I have provided example after example showing why AS can be justified, with both of my Bill examples. My opponent has provided argument after good argument, showing why some people wishing AS are selfish, and should not be allowed to end their life. I agree, in some instances, AS will not be justified.BUT YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT IN ALL INSTANCES. My opponent has not given me any specific reason for why we should be allowed to dictate how one lives their life, including how they end it. My opponent has not even touched my argument about the non-existence of morality. Therefore it can be accepted and