Euthanasia should be legalized

I thank CON for his/her argument, and would like to address each point from R.1, 1.Immoral The question of morality on any subject is difficult, I feel Kant's argument that 'using pain as a reason to end one's life was contradictory to the purpose of pain and was therefore immoral' to be ironic. The question of morality should always be subjected to the individual through choice. There may be many to whom agree with Kant's interpretation and would rather face the pain than death, whereas others will want the opposite. By pointing out the immorality of using pain to end one's life CON is rejecting the other immorality of taking away a choice from a human being. I would be interested to find a Kant example of mental pain rather than the fire/physical example he uses, for mental pain is just as significant when discussing euthanasia. I agree we strive to be moral beings, however I would question my morality if I were a doctor with a patient who is terminally ill and only has 1 month to live who is begging for his life to be ended sooner, and I have the capability to ease his passing with the recognition of family members if I didn't step up and act. I believe it is more Moral to allow for choice than it is to accept that pain is to protect one's life and therefore must be endured. I would like to address your last point now under the 5. VOLUNTARY? section. The 1991 Boston Globe Survey you use in evidence to your argument is indeed hypothetical. In many cases it is the physical pain that encourages people to request euthanasia, however I agree with CON that the 'burden' is particularly the most significant reasoning behind euthanasia requests. It is true that many elderly people feel they are a burden to their surroundings. But I believe in these circumstances the request to die will enhance and reinforce the families love for them and may actually be a good mechanism for preventing the death occurring. If I knew a loved one of mine wanted to die I would want to know why and be there for them as much as I could. It is with euthanasia where I feel if it were to be legalized, family members should be consulted before the process is carried out. Your 'ethics for schools' source is perhaps ironic too as the quote doesn't understand the strength behind such a decision, and the strength behind accepting a decision by a family and/or doctor. The AktionT4 (Euthanasia Program) you brought up established in 1939 is luckily one I studied at College. The precursor to the Holocaust - framed as a Euthanasia Program - was indeed a disgusting display of human behavior. However, this was no euthanasia program but a form of mass killings against the will of many people and many families. Your reference to it suggests to me you think a doctor is murdering a patient if the patient asks to be put to rest. Meanwhile comparing an act of free-will and free-choice to the program of 'ethnic cleansing' by the Nazis is not one I would accept. As often starvation was used whereas the Oxford dictionary's definition of Euthanasia is 'the act of causing somebody to die gently and without pain, especially when they are suffering from a painful incurable disease' and therefore bears no resemblance to the Nazi campaign. Also doctors were encouraged to decide in favor of death during euthanasia, one which would not be the case in modern western countries. 2. Subjectivity CON suggests pain,suffering, or terminal illnesses are all subjective and could get different opinions from different doctors, however this statement refuses to acknowledge that Doctors do not feel the patients pain. Pain can be tiny to one person but huge to another, the most basic example is that some people can walk over broken glass smiling! Measuring pain has nothing to do with it; it is the individuals personal pain and it may be different to any one else. The law should be simple, if they are in any type of pain, they say they are in pain, they want to die, their family are okay with it and understand why, it should be allowed. 3. Right to Die Do you not agree that this is a problem? At least if it was a right there is still the choice to not do it. The right gives the choice and that is what the people should have. Just because the court rules against it doesn't make it right. 4. Slippery Slope I do not agree that the Groningen Protocol is part of a slippery slope. The infants which may receive this as discussed in your source provided, The infants that may receive this euthanasia protocol are because of 3 categories: 'First, there are infants with no chance of survival'... 'Infants in the second group have a very poor prognosis and are dependent on intensive care. These patients may survive after a period of intensive treatment, but expectations regarding their future condition are very grim.'... 'Finally, there are infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering. Although it is difficult to define in the abstract, this group includes patients who are not dependent on intensive medical treatment but for whom a very poor quality of life, associated with sustained suffering, is predicted' [4] Therefore there are sound reasons for such protocols and this isn't the killing of infants. I assume you are against abortion too therefore my next statement is addressed to anyone reading; Wouldn't you rather a peaceful end before an entire life of pain and suffering. Hopefully with modern medicine this could be addressed and there could be better quality of life for these infants so it would mean they could get the most of life, but I know I wouldn't be able to bear watching a family member of mine suffer day in and day out.