Euthanasia should be legalised

"Pro claims that the Supreme Court has been wrong before. This is simply not true at all. The Supreme Court interpreted the laws correctly per the time period given."The validity of the Supreme Court's decisions is a totally separate matter and is irrelevant to the debate at hand. The point is, that we as Americans have the ability to change laws, even those in the Constitution.It is simple logic that the right to death comes with the right to life. The Founding Fathers simply didn't write that because suicide was not a major crisis at the time."On the Hippocratic oath, the version you are quoting is one of many versions of the Hippocratic Oath that has been redone. I was working off the classical version"The Classical Oath is not the one that doctors currently recite. They recite and are bound by the Modern Oath, so that is what is actually relevant to the debate, and the Modern Oath simply says to ease the patient's suffering. There is nothing specifically mentioning or pertaining to euthanasia."What I'm saying is that where do you draw the line for consent... The Constitution applies to all citizens including the aforementioned examples. This forfeits their right to life which even you agree that you have."You are correct. You have convinced me through this particular argument that the family shouldn't have the right to decide whether or not the patient is euthanized. Thus, we can draw the "line for consent" to be that only the patient themself can give consent to be euthanized."We've already established that medical professionals do not support euthanasia so Government funding is the only way to encourage it."Who says that the government has to encourage it? They are simply providing the option for the small population of medical professionals who ARE willing to do it. No encouragement is necessary; legalization does not imply promotion. "...the burden of proof lies not with disproving euthanasia, but proving the benefits, or pros argument, However, insofar, pro has not offered an advantage other than it ends suffering."First of all, that is not the only advantage I offered. I also mentioned the fact that it would decrease suicide rates, since doctors would have a last chance to get the patient some suicide prevention therapy. Since you have not addressed this point, you have automatically conceded it to me. Second of all, sometimes, Euthanasia is the only thing which can truly eliminate someone's suffering. Consider incurable diseases like cancer. If an old man is racked with a horrible cancer that has spread all over their body, and and has been undergoing constant but unsuccessful treatment for over a year, they might just want to die so they can escape their suffering. What right does the government have to tell that man that "he's just going to have to go kill himself"? Especially if the doctor is perfectly willing to painlessly take him out of his suffering through euthanasia?The right to death unquestionably comes with the right to life. If someone really wants to die, why not let them do it painlessly, in a setting where they can possibly even get help and avoid their death entirely?Euthanasia would be totally harmless to legalize; probably beneficial, actually. Thank you for an interesting debate.You actually gave me quite a bit of insight on the issue!