Debate: Case Affirmative

Debate: Affirmative Case Judge I am here today to argue for the affirmative position on the terminally ill should be allowed to choose medically supervised euthanasia . Now, the road map to our resolutions is one the definition of terminally ill and euthanasia. Second, we will state our three contentions which are why should it be legal? Is it considered criminal homicide? Is it fair if the patients mental health is unstable? Judge, our resoultion states that those who are terminally ill which means a person with an active and malignant disease that cannot be cured or treated and is reasonably expected to die. Euthanasia means the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die. Means that a dcotor gives them drugs/medication to help easy their pain as they die or to allow them to pass away without discomfort. Our first contention can be proven according to Euthanasia Debates on debates.org because they state if it was legal all they would have to do is make sure the patients mental health is stable. The second reason why you should vote affirmative is because according to James Fieser author of Moral Issues that Divide Us, the countries where it is legal they do not pentalize the doctors for criminal homicide, so if it became legal in all states its only logical to not pentalize the doctors. The last contention is simple if their mental health is unstable then they should not be allowed to have the choice of euthanization. If their mental state is proper then they can continue with the treatment according to James Fieser author of Moral Issues that Divide Us. Judge. I have given you three contentions, one that it should be legalized, two it should not be considered criminal homicide, and last that the patients mental health should be stable when making the desicion. I have provided evidence that clearly says that the affirmative position is the correct position.For those reasons, I ask that you vote in favor of the affirmative. Thank