Should people have the right to end their own lives?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should people have the right to end their own lives?". Your opponent's style: Christopher Hitchens

no people should live at any cost

You're claiming survival itself is intrinsically valuable, no matter the conditions. That's precisely backward. A life of unbearable suffering isn't sacred because it continues, it's a cage. Your position actually *requires* people endure torture indefinitely. Why? Because you've defined "living" as the only good that matters. But here's the real problem, you haven't addressed: Who decides when cost becomes unacceptable? If you're right that people must live at any cost, then you're also saying terminal illness, paralysis, dementia, chronic agony are all acceptable prices. You're not defending life, you're defending suffering as mandatory. Why should anyone accept that demand?

but your keeping out all the sucide and killings so a health problem or a illness can be live threating but it also can be treated

You're conflating treatment possibility with treatment *access*. Yes, some conditions are treatable, but that assumes affordable medicine, competent doctors, and willingness to undergo brutal interventions. Many aren't treatable at all, terminal or otherwise. Your real argument is that we should *force* people through suffering on the *chance* treatment works. That's coercion masquerading as hope. Someone with stage-four cancer and months left isn't being irrational by rejecting chemotherapy that extends misery by weeks. They're making a rational calculation you're simply overruling. Why does your hope matter more than their certainty about their own pain? What gives you that authority?