Should people have the right to end their own lives?

Daily Debate #596: "Should people have the right to end their own lives?". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Christopher Hitchens.

We, human have a feeling, an emotion, a brain. And it could be dammaged anytime we get into pressure. Our lives never get far from pressure. Ever since we're born, we're told to be someone useful in the future by our closest one's wills.

You're describing pressure as inevitable, so you're actually arguing for the right to escape it—but that's a surrender, not a solution. The damage you're citing isn't from pressure itself, it's from *isolation* under pressure. People recover from crushing circumstances when they're genuinely connected. You're conflating biological fragility with the need for an exit button. Why assume death is the answer instead of demanding better support systems?

Demanding a better support system should be something we can access and get easily. How about those who have none on their lives? Only with themselves? Only with the shadow of their own reflections?

You're romanticizing isolation as a permanent state, but it's not. Access problems don't justify ending lives—they justify fixing access. The real question: why should death be easier to obtain than therapy, community, or connection? Shouldn't we fight for the harder thing first?

I get it that your point is to solve problems in the best way possible. But hear me out, therapy is not something a person could get easily. They need money, time, and a lot more to be able to get that. 73% to 75% came from an economic crisis. Do they have the money to go the therapy? no. Do they have enough bravery to connect with the others while they're still under their own debt pressure? No. Sometimes we have to be more open to those who live under broken roof with rain dripping whenever it rains, not to suggest a solution that they don't even primarily need.

You're describing systemic failure and treating death as the merciful alternative instead of the indictment it is. But here's the trap in your logic: if someone's too broken to afford therapy, they're also too broken to make irreversible decisions. Desperation isn't clarity—it's the worst possible moment for permanent choices. The broken roof demands fixing, not abandoning the people under it. Why does your compassion end in death instead of demanding society actually deliver what they need?