This house endorses euthanasia

Thanks for the challenge! I'm far better with philosophical topics, no doubt because they are more 'wishy washy' - but here goes nothing... To reiterate my earlier comments, I suggest that the definition of Euthanasia proposed here is too narrow and subjective as you could never know for certain eg if a coma is definitely irreversible, or that an illness will definitely be terminal, or that it might not be curable at some point in the future. Plus with the greatest will in the world, even if you initially only intended it to apply to the most obvious cases - it introduces the slippery slope argument that eventually it will affect more and more borderline cases. Far better to have a solid moral line past which we know not to cross in my view. I also have doubts that anyone should unquestioningly endorse euthanasia - as there are at least the following risks/issues you would need to adequately address, which I'm not convinced you could ever fully safeguard against: 1) With an ageing population, hospitals under increasing strain and governments struggling to meet pensions demands, isn't allowing Euthanasia rather too tempting for less scrupulous governments / hospital trusts to manipulate into an 'easy solution' to many of these problems? I think society should think very deeply indeed into whether we want to hand the legal power over human life and death into the hands of anyone. In sunny old England where I am from, we repealed the death penalty decades ago - largely because we recognised the significant dangers of giving human beings that level of power - and the total irreversibility of getting such a crucial decision wrong. 2) How can you ever be certain you have genuine 'informed consent' from the patient? Particularly in the case of people suffering secondary depression alongside their primary illness (very often depression can develop because the patient is suffering an ongoing illness). Perhaps for several months they might feel like ending it all, but then after that they might bounce back and feel more positive again. Also, how do you prevent psychological pressure being subtly put on a patient, either by doctors or relatives: "we're struggling to cope with the stress...", "wouldn't it be easier for everyone if..?" etc. So on paper the patient has consented, but behind the scenes they have been psychologically 'worn down'. This is particularly delicate in a situation eg where there is a wealthy aged relative, and family who stand to inherit upon the death of said relative. 3) The present set of medical ethics makes it clear that a doctor's duty is to care for, respect and preserve human life - and not to kill. As soon as you remove this crucial safeguard, and start blurring the lines, not only does it place us in uncharted and potentially very dangerous territory - but also it puts a tremendous level of responsibility on the doctor. It is one thing to cope with losing a patient for making a mistake when you were trying to save them - it is entirely another thing to know that your direct action deliberately and intentionally ended the life of another. 4) From a theological point of view, if life is granted to humanity from a higher power - then it raises the moral question of whether anyone should have the right to take life away (even from oneself). If you don't believe in God, this is probably less of an issue for you (unless it turns out there actually is a God after all, but we can debate the merits and drawbacks of Pascal's Wager another time) - but plenty of people do believe in God, and the sacredness of human life, so I have included this argument. For me it happens to be the most significant point. I'll close with the same sound-bite as before, as I think it is catchy and makes my argument sound cleverer: I believe it was G K Chesterton that said: "whenever you take down a fence, at least pause long enough to consider why it was there in the first place".