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

Thank you for accepting my challenge. My opponent brings up valid points, but all these problems can be solved with proper regulation. For drug-related harm, many harms wouldn't apply to the case of the terminally ill. The person is already dying, if it's legal there's no incarceration, and for productivity terminally ill people often can't work or choose not to anyways, because they don't want to spend the end of life working. Violence is a preventable risk. Drugs could be limited to in-patient use. Security training, hiring security, and using door locks and restraints could be used. To lower the risk any number of regulations can be used while still allowing the drugs. If a drug has a higher risk of violence or makes the patient harder to control it could be limited to a securer room. As for medical costs these can be limited by making the patient pay for the drugs, and security services. As for euthanasia, my opponent brings up nonconsentual euthanasia. The debate is over whether "The Terminally Ill Should Be Allowed Access to Any Drugs They Want". Letting the terminally ill use any drug they want doesn't mean we must let doctors euthanize patients nonconsentually. As for underreporting we can require reports. This would make all drug administrations easy to monitor to make sure they are following regulations. Records could be reviewed to look for violations. Unreported cases might still happen, but unreported administration of drugs to patients for any purpose would be just as illegal as it already is. Letting the terminally ill have drugs they want in a regulated system would lower unreported cases since if the patient requests it the doctor has no reason not to follow regulations but with it completely illegal a doctor would have to keep it a secret. As for an implied "duty to die" since drugs are only given to the terminally ill even if someone felt pressure from family to die to save money they'd need to be near death already to get euthanasia. And most families wouldn't tell the person to choose euthanasia to save money. There are probably some, but common sense is that more would be urging their loved ones to go on some even afraid that if they choose euthanasia they will receive eternal damnation. It's more likely for a patient to be pressured to live than die. Even if pressured from family they're not likely to concede. Putting money first shows a lack of love which would likely get the patient to respond with defiance. If a patient chooses euthanasia because they believe they have a "duty to die" its because of their own personal beliefs, not pressure. But a patient might be pressured with a "duty to live". Since pressure not to euthanize doesn't show a lack of love patients who'd otherwise euthanize might choose not to if their family is against it, especially if they fear they'd have eternal torment. The possibility of some patients feeling a "duty to live" isn't a reason to make euthanasia mandatory so the possibility of some patients feeling a "duty to die" isn't a reason to have euthanasia illegal. Besides to force patients in excruciating pain to suffer because others might feeling pressured to choose euthanasia if allowed wouldn't be fair. Even with pressured they still have a choice. It's their responsibility to say no, not the state's responsibility. As for theft, I'm not promoting theft. "Access to any drugs" doesn't mean any person's drugs, just any type of drug. If I was advising to let terminally ill steal drugs the clarification in Round 1 would be irrelevant. Most importantly letting the terminally ill have drugs they want could lead to scientific breakthroughs and save lives. A patient might try something and find a new treatment or cure. But we can't just allow drug use for experimental treatment. If a patient is prevented from taking drugs for other reasons it creates red tape that would stop some honest patients from receiving drugs as an experimental treatment.