Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill

This debate isn't about suicide or the freedom to refuse medical treatment. The issue in this debate is whether euthanasia for the terminally ill benefits or harms society. To prove that euthanasia for the terminally ill benefits society, Pro must not only show that euthanasia offers unique benefits that aren't captured by suicide or the right to refuse medical treatment, but also that these unique benefits outweigh the harms. And legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill imposes significant harms on society. I'll start with Pro's contentions:(1) Pro's first contention confuses things by raising the issue of suffering patients and assisted suicide. The resolution requires that Pro justify euthanasia for all terminally ill patients, not just those that suffer. Thus, Pro's focus on suffering patients is misplaced, as it has no impact on the resolution. Arguing for assisted suicide also has no impact on the resolution. In euthanasia, the doctor kills the patient. In assisted suicide, the doctor assists but the patient is the final causal actor in his or her own death. That means there's greater room for abuse and error in euthanasia, because doctors can kill patients involuntarily or mistakenly. In assisted suicide, doctors cannot kill patients, period. So Pro's arguments for assisted suicide also don't have any impact on the resolution. Finally, the actual substance of Pro's argument is profoundly flawed. Prohibiting euthanasia (or even assisted suicide) doesn't force anyone to suffer; patients are free to commit suicide of their own volition or to refuse medical treatment. Thus, euthanasia or assisted suicide offers no unique benefit to patients who want to end their lives early. (2) Pro's second contention has no impact on the resolution because I admit a right to die. To be sure, Pro says that individuals "should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. " Of course, this is nothing more than Pro's assertion. And it's absurd to say individuals can force anyone of their choosing to kill them. In fact, that conflicts with Pro's "libertarian" position, as it coerces individuals to kill people they might not want to kill. (3) Pro's third contention has no impact on the resolution because it focuses on prolonging inevitable death, which isn't argued. Even if euthanasia is kept illegal, individuals still have the right to commit suicide (ending their suffering) or to refuse medical treatment (bringing their death more quickly). Moreover, Pro offers no reason to accept the Hippocratic Oath. Remember, this debate is about whether euthanasia "should" be recognized as a human right, not whether it "is" recognized under existing medical norms. No matter how many laws or medical codes allow euthanasia, the question is still whether those laws or medical codes are right or wrong. Pro offers no reason to accept this oath. (4), (5), and (6) Pro's fourth, fifth, and sixth contention have no impact on the resolution. They're a bunch of bare assertions with no relation to euthanasia. I'm not arguing for life-prolonging care when someone has refused medical treatment. On the contrary, I argue in support of the right to commit suicide and the right to refuse treatment. And I might even let assisted suicide be legalized if there's good arguments for it. I'll now make a few arguments against euthanasia:(1) Euthanasia drowns our privacy in safeguards, because it requires a transparent process to check for abuse. The deathbed -- like the bedroom -- should remain free from state intrusion. Even Pro said "death is a private matter . .. the state and other people have no right to interfere. " Well, that's precisely what's going to happen if euthanasia is legal. The deathbed scene will need to be recorded. Dying will become a public event. The result is less privacy and less freedom about our own deaths. (2) What's to stop involuntary euthanasia? This is precisely what happened in the Netherlands after they legalized euthanasia for the terminally ill; they legalized non-consensual euthanasia a few years later. This is one of those things where a slippery slope has been proven by the evidence. This reason this is likely is because euthanasia, voluntary or involuntary, is justified on the same logic. If we follow this slope to its logical conclusion, physicians would be forced to kill patients if the value of keeping them alive is less than than the costs of medical care. (3) There's a real danger of abuse without sufficient safeguards. And even with safeguards, there's still a possibility for abuse. There's aslo the risk of doctors mistakenly killing persons without their consent, as well as the risk that the patient is being coerced by others (e. g. family members). (4) There's a possibility of discrimination/abuse against minorities. Pro hints at this possibility in his sixth contention. The reality is that minority cancer patients are three times less likely than nonminority patients to receive adequate palliative care. Blacks are 3.5 times more likely than whites to have one of their limbs amputated. And minorities receive worse AIDS treatment. [1] There's no reason to believe this won't translate to euthanasia. For instance, lack of adequate palliative care means more suffering, and more suffering means a higher likelihood of euthanasia. The law shouldn't create conditions that disenfranchise certain groups of people for arbitrary reasons. (5) Euthanasia transforms the role of doctors. They become killers instead of healers. And in killing patients, doctors santify both suicide and intentional killing. In effect, doctors become priests, granting absolution for a patient's desire to end their life. Meanwhile, the state santifies the intentional killing of another human being. This isn't a role that doctors or the state should have; the medical profession shouldn't be in the business of santifying suicides and the state shouldn't be in the business of santifying intentional killings. That's something better left to religious or moral institutions. (6) Legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill undermines human equality in critical ways. First, by limiting it to certain people -- specifically, the terminallly ill -- it sends a message that certain people are expendable and others aren't. In effect, allowing euthanasia for some people in certain conditions cheapens the existence of all under those conditions. Thus, Pro asks that we enforce a distinction between persons not with respect to social security or education or other government services, but with respect to the most fundamental question of all, namely, whose lives should be treated as inviolable under law and whose may be subject to intentional destruction by others. This creates a second class of citizens. Furthermore, legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill suggestst that human life has instrumental value. But the only way to justify equal protection of the law is by recognizing that human life is intrinsically valuable. Why treat people with equal respect if we don't really believe that they're equal? If humans only have value based on their instrumental worth to society, why extend equal protection to those with low IQs? the mentally disabled? the autistic? infants with Down's syndrome? Alzheimer's patients? And besides, Pro's criteria for deciding who is expendable and who isn't is arbitrary (who decides which lives are worthy preservation and thus the full protection of the law? why are some lives unworthy of protection? ).