Government should permit Euthanasia

I will be addressing the three rebuttals provided by the opposition, and provide three key voting issues to show how the con is the obvious victor of this round. 1. Con Isolation For starters, you talk about monetary issues, and how these negatively impact people since medical treatment is expensive. However, you haven't even addressed the monetary cost of euthanasia. The government is obviously not going to supply drugs for assisted suicide, so the patient would have to purchase them, and then consume them, which is a.)Illegal on the grounds that they are not fit to make that decision, and b.) the active taking of a life. I acknowledge that isolation and treatment can be costly, but we have to take into account the VALUE it costs society: Sanctity of Life. By justifying assisted suicide, you endorse a society that has little to no respect for the person. But you're probably thinking "We respect them by allowing them to kill themselves." , but that respect is non-existent, since that person is NOT fit to make that decision in the first place. We have to look at the value of euthanasia, and how it impacts society, not only the individual. I shall address this further in the case. 2a. To start off, I'd like to point out the biggest hole in your argument. You say that, and I quote "But, the power that Government have in this case is not to control. I have said that the power the Government use was just a power to provide the Regulation for people to used. The Merriam Webster definition of regulate is "to control or supervise something" REGULATION IS CONTROL. This contradiction is the main argument in this contention, and therefore, the point falls. Second, on the Gulag example. As I have already clarified the definition of regulate, we can now dissect your Gulag rebuttal, and why it is false. First, you have stated that euthanasia is to protect the people. So was the Gulag. The KGB listened to everything, and locked these people up for petty crimes, or no crimes at all, JUST TO PROTECT SOCIETY. Euthanasia will be the EXACT same case. By giving a government a power like that, one that literally controls life and death, there is absolutely no way that this will end up protecting the people. All of the maniacal despots of the world did what they did to protect their people. Though the aim is noble, the cost to society is far to great to ignore. You have provided no safeguards for this "Government Euthanasia", so there is no determining where it will stop. Where is the line drawn? We cannot fall into such a vague system in the name of security, because as demonstrated, it leads to the greatest of costs. 2b. Here you point out a "contradiction" in my casework. You bring up the slow death and agony arguments again, but that has absolutely no relation to my original statement. In the Gulag, people were not fed. They were not clothed. They were not bathed. Children shriveled up like raisins due to dehydration and hunger. That is absolutely no comparison for treatment. You clearly hold the misconception that isolation is just locking John Doe in a room and letting him wait out the disease. That is not the case. It is a treatment facility. The sick don't sit and rot, they get painkillers if they are in pain, and the adequate care they need. But back to the slow death argument. Even if isolation or pulling the plug brought this about, they don't contribute to the devaluing of societal ideals. By treating these people, society is assured that they will be cared for in their final hours, and not just juiced up with medication until they croak. By letting the government actively take lives of the innocent, that will clearly cause resent, and it will keep people from seeking care for their problems, resulting in the slow death scenario. What this shows is that by permitting euthanasia, YOU allow people to rot, and YOU allow these people to die in the name of societal protection. Though your cause is noble, you are clearly misguided. 3. Another contradiction? This is absurd. You clearly did not read the explanation of the pull the plug scenario, so I will explain it again. "Pulling the Plug" is usually done at the request of the patients family OR if a living will is discovered for the patient indicating that they do not want heroic measures to prolong life. These are usually signed before the patient is ill, with witnesses - in other words no duress. Patients that have life-support removed do not have to be brain dead. Families decide every day to remove life support from terminally ill patients to let them die with dignity, rather than have to suffer being attached to tubes and wires for the days-weeks-months we can keep them alive with machines and drugs. What this means is that the decision is made PRIOR to illness, whereas euthanasia is not. By allowing someone to make this life changing decision while they are incapacitated, you are just setting them up to be killed. As I have already stated, it is ILLEGAL for the person to make that kind of decision, and the family cannot do so either, since they are incapacitated with remorse. Now, back to the matter at hand. Since pulling the plug is specified BEFORE the illness is contracted, we can assure this decision is rational, and we allow them to die peacefully, and not kill them with drugs they would have to pay for in the first place. We both clearly have the same intentions, but to achieve them by actively taking a life, that is unspeakable. You disregard the law by letting this happen, and the individual, and whoever may be affected. If we just pull the plug, it keeps our moral compasses clear. We allow them to achieve the peaceful death they wanted, without the moral repercussions. Now, with the voting issues 1. Sanctity of Life We have both agreed that saving lives is important, but the fact is, actively taking one isn't the case. Pulling the plug, as I have stated, is passive, and specified before it is needed, so we can be sure that decision was made rationally, and we then can avoid legal, and moral backlash. 2. Contradictions As mentioned in argument 2a, the definition of regulate literally means control, but you said governments would only regulate. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... As outlined in arguments 2a and b, the consequences of government overreach are huge, and we cannot allow the government to hurt the people in the name of protection. 3. False Contradiction Arguments You accused me of contradictions twice when you just failed to read the points thoroughly. Outlined above in 2b and 3 With these three rebuttals and voters in mind, I conclude that the negative is the victor of this round. Thanks for the debate!