Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice

Thank you for your response. It is certainly appreciated that a debate can be held in this area without forfeiture. While pro's arguments are taken seriously and respectfully, there are a litany of erroneous assumptions that he is making. First of all, he is assuming that everyone has a right to death. His logic is, and I quote: "The first thing that must be done in order to show that euthanasia should be legalized is to demonstrate that with the right to life comes the right to death. I think my opponent would agree that all citizens have a right to life"" I do agree that we as citizens have the right to life, however, that does not mean that we have the right to death. Life and death are totally different things, and the government does, in fact, want to promote the general welfare and well-being of its citizens. While you could argue that "putting someone to sleep" is promoting well-being, it all depends on interpretation of the constitution. Plus, pro still hasn't responded to any of my arguments regarding the statements of the Hippocratic oath. Though the constitution is instrumental to follow, the Hippocratic oath is just as important when dealing with medical practice. According to Tom Coburn, doctor and US Senator, says that no one wants to have doctors deciding who lives and who dies. "We do not have that power"we are becoming God. The Declaration of Independence says that we should have the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing in it says we have the right to pursue death, nothing. Pro is also forgetting the Due Process Clause that protects "the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest." The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of rejection to permit it by vote of 9-0, in the Washington vs. Glucksberg case. Even though many of the judges are "pro-choice," this not affect the interpretations of stare decisis made in previous cases. Ultimately, euthanasia is a right of intrusion, not the general right to control death and its timing/manner. This is the simple basis that of the constitutional right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. However, restrictions placed on suicide do not have any intrusions, but it simply is preventing individuals from hindering the natural process and cycle of death. These are two different principles as well. The New York State Task Force on Life and Law argued that: "While restrictions on suicide do limit individual autonomy, the bare fact that individual options are constrained does not render such limits unconstitutional"" Is intrusion, therefore, limiting the freedom (right) of the population? Perhaps. Does it become unconstitutional? No. Stare decisis remains here. Again, I will not provide a counter-example to contest that "Having euthanasia administered in a clinical setting is by far the safest and least painful way for one to exercise their right to death," because I never agreed with this assumption of the right to death. I have proved it erroneous. Based on judicial procedures and legal processes, it remains the case that Euthanasia should not be legal in medical practice. Though pro's arguments are well taken, they are not conclusive enough to overturn stare decisis.