Their version the person truly must see the error of their ways and repent. And it's based on Dante's version--the only exit is at the center, you must pass through all the rings of sins worse than yours to get there.
I meant a human-level mind.
What you fail to understand is that the lines between "enough" (which is measured in pain control) and "too much" (which is measured in respiratory depression) eventually cross.
But what's the point in such a life? If you're not conscious to experience it where's the value?
Strawman--nobody's saying that they should get to tell you what to do with your body. This whole thing is about the patient's decision. The doctor is only deciding if the legal requirements are met and in some cases of whether the patient meets any contingencies they may have set up. (Some countries have laws set up that the patient can make contingent requests.)
Most people don't leave much of an estate anyway.
That's so true. Lion IRC seems to be implying most people want to kill off their relative to get an early inheritance, and as in the USA most people are nominally Christian, he means Christians want to give an early send off to heaven (or hell) to the relative.
No, that issue is MASSIVELY overshadowed by why should a priest get to decide what I can and can't do with my own body - and WHEN.
An awful lot of people have little beyond what they actually use. Personal possessions, perhaps a house. Remember that most retirement income is tied to life and disappears when they die. And note that AFIAK all countries with euthanasia are UHC countries--no appreciable medical bills. Some US states permit lethal prescriptions but the patient must do it themselves, something they can't always do.
You're acting as if it would be a widespread problem. And you're assuming the checks built into the system wouldn't catch such cases.
You have it backwards. A typical reasonably competent person can end their life with very high reliability. (Suicide failures are very often due to mental illness--an impulsive act with whatever is at hand rather than a reasoned act that requires advance planning.) The problem comes in that by the time you have reached the point you would wish to take that path you are no longer physically capable of doing so, especially if you need to take multiple actions within a reasonably narrow period of time. It's about having outside assistance to do what you can no longer do. And the doctors can do sequenced things that patients are inherently incapable of. (Canada uses an anesthetic followed by a paralytic.)
Yes, but that doesn't mean a blanket prohibition.
Nothing requires a patient to sign such an advanced directive. They can choose to appoint someone to carry out their wishes, there is no forcing. (This was added in Canada because there's a waiting period in their law--and too many people ended up denied in the end because they had gone far enough downhill to no longer be able to give informed consent.)
