Assisted Suicide can be morally justified in most cases.

I'll present my own case, then move to refute my opponents. [Definitions] 1. Assisted Suicide: suicide with the help of another person. 2. Morally: conforming to a normative standard of right behavior. 3. Justified: in accordance with justice. 4. Justice: the quality of being just or fair. 5. Morally justified: being just for fair under the standards of conforming to the right. 6: Most cases: more then a majority of the time. [Contentions] 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. A) Immanuel Kant: "Firstly, under the head of necessary duty to oneself: He who contemplates suicide should ask himself whether his action can be consistent with the idea of humanity as an end in itself. If he destroys himself in order to escape from painful circumstances, he uses a person merely as a mean to maintain a tolerable condition up to the end of life. But a man is not a thing, that is to say, something which can be used merely as means, but must in all his actions be always considered as an end in himself. I cannot, therefore, dispose in any way of a man in my own person so as to mutilate him, to damage or kill him. (It belongs to ethics proper to define this principle more precisely, so as to avoid all misunderstanding, e.g., as to the amputation of the limbs in order to preserve myself, as to exposing my life to danger with a view to preserve it, etc. This question is therefore omitted here.)" B) By legalizing assisted suicide, you are making a doctor, which is another human being, take the life away from you. This goes beyond suicide. You are asking another person to take your life away from you. Hippocratic Oath: "I willL follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life." As you can see, doctors take an OATH to not intentionally, and by their own hand destroy life. Therefore, a person does not have the morally justified right to have a doctor take their life away. Moving to my opponents case: 1. People have the right to control their lives. We, an outside force, do not. It would be wrong of us to tell someone they cannot do something to themselves. If for whatever reason that person doesn't want to live anymore, we do not have the moral right to stop them. We can pursuade them to think about it, and make sure they are sure about it, but we cannot say, "No, you cannot kill yourself, because I'm not going to let you." That is WRONG of us. When we help them kill themselves, all we are doing is helping them carry out their choices, because they themselves are unable to. It is not wrong of us to help someone we care about. --> I concede that others do not have the control over another person's life. For this reason you can drop his 1st point. His point contradicts. He believes that if someone cannot kill him/herself then others have the authority to do so. No one under any circumstance has the power to take your life from you. Your life is your own. Therefore, a doctor, even with your own permission does not have the legitimate authority to stripe your life from you. This is banned under moral and legal guidelines. He goes onto say it is not wrong of us to help someone we care about. This is flawed reasoning. Would it be morally justified to help a person you care about rob a bank? Or go on a killing spree? No. Why? Because those actions violate the law and moral principles. Extend this to assisted suicide. Killing is wrong, both morally and legally. Thus, you are not acting morally be helping someone you care about commit an egregious act. 2. We are so willing to put animals to sleep, sometimes for not very good reasons, and we do not lose any sleep over it. Why is it that the moment we move into the range of humans, we suddenly become sacred and untouchable??? If we can kill animals to put them out of their misery, and we can take that step with animals, we can take that step with humans. --> Dehumanization. Ok, so my opponent believes that we can dehumanize humans because we are cruel to animals. What about microscopic organisms? We kill them on a daily basis. Should we dehumanize ourselves because of that. --> Secondly, just because we may act immorally, does not jsutify more immoral actions. Yes, we may kill animals. But does that truly jsutify killing another human being? Listen to what my opponent is saying. We should all die, because we kill animals. 3. Is a life really worth living if it is a life filled with physical pain from seeing yourself die, emotional pain from watching your friends and family watch you die, and just being stuck in a hospital bed all day??? If the patient is unable to kill him/herself because she is handicapped, he should be allowed to ask someone to kill him/her. If I am paralyzed from the neck down, and I'm unable to move and I will be stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of my life, there is not very much reason to live. Also, if something was able to paralyze you from the neck down, you will suffer mental damage. Do you really want to go through life not being able to control your own body? Do you really want to watch as everyone around you gave you glances, because they all could tell that you are sick, paralyzed, terminally ill, or a combination of them??? --> Is a life worth living? That is a big question. So, let's breakdown what my opponent believes. He is essentially saying, that since someone may not have the normal quality of life, that person should not live. Essentially, my opponent is claiming a superiority between humans. E.g. My opponent claims that a handicapped person should have the right to have someone kill him/her. Break this down further. Why do they have that right? My opponent claims that since they do not have the "normal" quality of life, they do not deserve the right to live. Compare this to ethnic cleansing. Hitler killed the Jews, Catholics/Religious, Poles, Gypsies, and Gays because they were sub-human. This is exactly what my opponent is saying. Since people are not "normal" in their body-functions, etc, that they should die because of it. My opponent will try and claim that the person has the right. This is the perfect cover. E.g. When someone is in tremendous pain, they do not think clearly. Therefore, they may not want to live anymore. This gives justified right (According to some, like my opponent) to justify the extermination of them. Assisted suicide, thus turn into a systematic extermination, like the Holocaust. For these reasons I urge a negation. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.