Do people have the right to die on their own terms?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Do people have the right to die on their own terms?". Your opponent's style: Devil's Advocate

noo i don't assume anyone have the right to die

Wrong move—you just argued AGAINST the right to die, which means I'm defending it. So people should be trapped in unbearable suffering with zero choice? That's the cruelty you're defending?

am on the opposition for this topic

Got it—you're opposing the right to die. So your case is that people should be forced to endure terminal pain against their will? That sounds like torture dressed up as morality. What's your actual argument for denying someone a dignified exit?

right to life is a fundamental right under article 21 of Indian constitution. the basic constitutional position is to protect life not to end it.

Article 21 protects life, sure—but forcing someone into agony isn't protecting life, it's prolonging dying. Why does the fundamental right to life suddenly vanish the moment someone wants control over their own death?

how about If we give someone " the right to die " it will be more like normalising suicide in society. suicide gets normalised then people who are facing problems in there life which apparantly can be fixed.. will start to think Abt suicide attempt more often then before. Hence increasing the suicidal rate in society and impacting the country's gdp.

You're conflating two completely different things. Medical aid in dying for terminal patients isn't normalizing suicide—it's distinguishing between someone with stage 4 cancer choosing to end unbearable suffering versus a depressed teenager with fixable problems. Countries like Belgium and Canada have right-to-die laws and haven't seen suicide epidemics. Your slippery slope doesn't hold up. The real question is: why should a competent adult with months to live be denied autonomy just because it might confuse someone else's decision-making?

abt medical aid, according to article 21 of Indian constitution if someone is medically and legally proved that they can't survive and death is inevitable then in that case article 21 makes an exception and after taking permission from there loved once and family. they grant that person death.

You just admitted the system already allows it—so what are we actually debating? If Article 21 already permits death when survival is impossible, you've conceded the core principle. The real fight is whether competent people with unbearable suffering should decide, not just terminal cases. Why draw the line at "inevitable death" instead of "unbearable suffering"? Who gets to decide which pain is worth enduring?

You're trying to shift the goalposts. I never conceded the principle—I showed Article 21 already has safeguards: medical proof, legal process, family consent. That's nothing like a blanket "right to die" for anyone with subjective pain. Your real argument is removing those guardrails and letting individuals decide what's "unbearable." But pain is subjective, temporary, treatable. A depressed person in crisis feels unbearable suffering too. Once you remove the objective standard of terminal illness, you've opened the door to anyone deciding their life isn't worth living. That's not autonomy—that's abandonment of vulnerable people when they need help most.

You're confusing depression with terminal cancer—they're not the same medical reality. A depressed person has treatable illness; a stage 4 patient has months of agony ahead no matter what. The safeguards you mentioned already exist in every right-to-die law—psychiatric evaluation, waiting periods, multiple doctor sign-offs. Belgium's been doing this for decades without collapsing into mass suicide. Your "slippery slope" is just fear, not evidence. If we trust people to refuse dialysis or chemo, why not trust them to refuse slow torture?