Legalize Euthanasia

I understand where Con is ultimately coming from- He makes crucial points that do need to be considered when debating the legalization of such an impactful procedure, but there are holes within his argument that I believe need to be addressed. My first rebuttal is the simple fact that, although ending one"s life is an eternal consequence like my opponent stated, the fate of these patients will already result in the equivalent outcome. Terminal, in Merriam-Webster"s online dictionary, means "leading ultimately to death (1)." With terminally ill patients, the outlook in the final stages of their ailment is an inevitable death. When considering this, one could find the point that no matter what the patient does in their situation, death will be an inescapable and irreversible outcome. What are these so-called "consequences" to physician-assisted suicide when the patient is going to die no matter what? So, why shouldn't a patient be in control of the conditions under which it occurs? If the patient were given the choice to be in control of how they would end up inevitably passing, one could schedule a date, make sure family would be there (because terminally ill patients can pass away arbitrarily in a hospital during a time family is not present), and clear up any unfinished business to the best of their abilities. Giving people the freedom to choose if they are terminal will give them the sense of control over something that is ultimately taking everything away from them. In many ways, I would compare it to the idea of shaving one"s head at the beginning of chemotherapy treatment. This gives a cancer patient the feeling of control over something that will inevitably happen due to their treatment (and I am in no way saying that death is the same as shaving one"s head, just the concept behind each is similar). Now, this brings up the question of mental competency. While there are some patients that may have depression due to their illness, there are equally as many who are completely sensible in their decisions. Take the case of 29-year old Brittany Maynard who had a stage 4 Glioblastoma multiforme for an example. When being interviewed by People magazine, she stated: "There is not a cell in my body that is suicidal or that wants to die. I want to live. I wish there was a cure for my disease but there's not... My glioblastoma is going to kill me, and that's out of my control. I've discussed with many experts how I would die from it, and it's a terrible, terrible way to die. Being able to choose to go with dignity is less terrifying" (2). Maynard talked it out with her family in a very logical manor and was able to come up with a choice while being clearly competent of her options, future outlook, and what the use of euthanasia would ultimately mean for her. If euthanasia were to be legalized, restrictions could be made to require that psychologists do a Competency Screening Test on all potential euthanasia patients. While these are options on ways to regulate the use of euthanasia, I strongly believe that even if a patient might be depressed about inevitably dying (and wanting to decide when they should peacefully die), they should not be deprived of their human rights to be able to decide when they have suffered enough. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My next argument is that the widespread use of euthanasia (which only has the potential to become popularly used) will not ultimately result in euthanasia becoming the "default" way to die. Like my opponent explained before me, I will explain this in a blunt process like the one in his argument: 1.Person X is diagnosed with terminal illness Y 2.Person X is educated by their doctor on the options that they have (such as euthanasia) available to terminal patients (like others suffering from Y) 3.Person X, due to extensive thought (keeping in mind their moral beliefs), will either request or decline euthanasia. 4.Person X dies (even if they declined euthanasia) Although euthanasia may become a more widely accepted option among patients in the future if it is legalized, many people will not stray from their beliefs/morals held on death and the topic (like whether physician-assisted suicide is morally right). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another argument that I will address is how euthanasia will affect the field of medical research. Since there is no information that can prove what would exactly happen if euthanasia was legalized in the future, the only evidence I can use is my honest opinionated outlook (like my opponent"s argument on this specific sub-topic). My opponent stated that the primary reason that medical research is conducted is to find cures for disease. I wholly agree with his statement, but I disagree with his notion that a popularity in euthanasia use would drain all motivation from scientists/physicians to continue this research. For you to better understand my argument I will ask this: Why are physicians/scientists looking for cures today (with euthanasia being illegal)? The answer: Scientists are looking for cures because many people fall ill to terminal diseases and inevitably die, and they want to help prevent the suffering and deaths of these people. Like my opponent said, I agree with his statement that the point of a cure is to prevent death. I do not, however, agree with his statement: "If people are asking for death when suffering from a particular disease, what is the point in finding a cure when many people are content to do without?" I disagree with this statement because, if a patient is terminally ill and will inevitably die with or without euthanasia, the death of all of these patients (whether they die naturally from the illness or from euthanasia) will still motivate scientists to find a cure and prevent these deaths from even being necessary. So, I will clearly conclude that it will not lead to the decline of motivation in the field of medical research. Also, in contrast to the final point that my opponent makes, the legalization of euthanasia will most certainly come with many restrictions and means of regulation. If it were to be legalized, the option would most likely only be offered to terminally ill patients, not just average elderly people. So, to overall conclude my rebuttal, euthanasia should be legalized because it shouldn't lead to a decline in a search for cures, many people will be able to decide responsibly if given the option, and people should be given the right to die peacefully and in control (if they choose to) instead of inevitably dying a little later on painfully (and without knowing when it will all end). Back to you, Con :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) "terminal." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2015. Web. 13 Feb. 2015. <http://www.merriam-webster.com...; (2) "Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?" ProCon.org. ProCon, 13 Oct. 2014. Web. 13 Feb. 2015. <http://euthanasia.procon.org...; *note that I'm new to this website and I don't know how to italicize on here so sorry for the slightly incorrect citations