The Terminally Ill Should Be Allowed Access to Any Drugs They Want

"Again…involved." The price to use could be set high enough to cover the costs. The extra money could be used to improve health care. Giving patients more options to spend money at the hospital, including this option leads to an improvement in services for everybody as the hospital has more money. We could go further. We could exclude any recreational drug-related healthcare costs from Medicare or other government programs and make patients pay in advance. "Suppose…mine." No it's not convincing. If a person isn't deterred by laws against rape when sex is legal they won't be deterred by laws against having sex in the first place. They're already willing to break the law, one against something worse than what you're banning to deter them from breaking the law. Likewise it makes no sense if a person isn't going to be deterred by laws against forced euthanasia that they would be deterred by laws against all euthanasia. Also measures like cameras in hospitals which can be paid for by raising the cost of euthanasia drugs for every patient who gets one could prevent doctors from getting away with nonconsentual euthanasia. "My…state." "Voluntary passive euthanasia" is a term rarely used. Websites referring to euthanasia laws such as the one listed by my opponent most likely did not include "VPE" in their definition of "euthanasia". Even if state law bans VPE federal law trumps it. Under the Patient Self-Determination Act, a patient has the right to refuse treatment for any reason[1]. Not only can a person refuse medical treatment they can make living wills to order medical treatment stop in some cases and/or give the decision to another if they're incapacitated. There are 2 options: 1. Drug-induced euthanasia is illegal and a patient who wants to die must refuse treatment and die a slow, painful death or 2. Drug-induced euthanasia is legalized so the patient can die a quick, painless death. Fear about pressure to die is a red herring. A patient can get pressure now by being pressured to end treatment. Con also ignored my point about how "pressure" doesn't take away choice. We're pressured to do things all the time. People who want to die sooner to avoid suffering shouldn't be made to live, just because others might face "pressure" to die. They still had a choice. Learning to say "no" to things you disagree with is a part of life. Even if some patients choose death because they think it's their duty that's still their opinion and their choice and should be respected. "Then…misspoke." Con just won't give up playing with words in order to redefine the debate. We all know "any" can be used in the way I used it to mean "any kind". The mother in my example isn't making a mistake. Many people speak like this. Since language is a social construct used to communicate, the way many people speak is evidence for the correct use of language. Con keeps ignoring the clarification at the beginning. I made it because some people might mistake "access" as "free access" and I wanted to make the point that I'm only arguing they be allowed it if they can afford it not arguing for or against them receiving this with help from others(government/private insurance). The clarification would have been pointless if they could steal it. Finally, even if drug use in an attempt to find a cure is legal stopping access to drugs for other purposes for the terminally ill would limit the ability for those honestly looking for a cure to do so. Each case would be examined to make sure they're not getting high or killing themselves. Red tape could cost the life of someone who otherwise would've found a way to cure themselves. The only way to remove red tape is allowing it for any purpose. I have thoroughly proven why this policy should be in place and Con has failed to adequately support any compelling reasons against it. Vote Pro! [1]http://www.legalhelpmate.com...