THBT: Voluntary Euthanasia shall be legalized.

Excuse me, sir, but about this part: "hey big contradiction again.. you said this "Since this is voluntary euthanasia, I think that since the patient gave the permission already, we should not worry that the patient might oppose to this. Also, it is not just the patient's permission but euthanasia also needs the permission of the doctor." so you mean the doctor must agree and how about if the patient wants to die but the doctor says no... will that be voluntary or what?? if the doctor must decide at the end, i dont think this is voluntary." I believe that you got it all wrong. Euthanasia is possible if and only if the doctor has allowed it. If the doctor has allowed it, it means that it is authentic and is liable since the doctor is licensed to do such job. For plausible reasons and scientific explanations, the doctor will decide if Euthanasia must or must not be conducted. However, if the doctor would allow it, it doesn't mean that Euthanasia MUST be done. All the doctor will do is recommend it. The patient and relatives must be consulted first. And oh, having religious points is not a crime. It's just discourage. "And yeah the doctors are being lazy and this is a way for them to make money and the laws cant do anything against them because it is being legalize." I'm sorry to say that you can't generalized all people in one single view. If a doctor will read this, he or she will obviously be upset. Kindly don't put them in a single category for we don't know their reasons....and I believe that they have their own personal opinions in this matter, whether good or not. "But under your case the doctor himself is performing the killing and that goes against his job." A doctor's hand might be tainted but s/he is merely the one who did it, not the one who choose to do this. I would like to remind you that the doctor ONLY recommends, not chooses. The choosing responsibility goes to the patient and possibly the relatives. And with your example, that already falls under Non-voluntary euthanasia. The doctor of the patient would obviously know if the patient is capable to choose the right decision of not. Again, if there are no patients that are dependent on machines that can make right decisions, then voluntary euthanasia does not exist. Then there are only two kinds of euthanasia. I would like to quote Tamora Langley of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society's view . Everyone wants a good death, which is why opinion polls show 85% of the population support us. Many people have seen friends and relatives die long drawn-out deaths and thought: "In their shoes I would like to have a choice about how and when I die." The doctor/patient relationship has changed a lot over the last 50 years, from 'doctor knows best' towards a more equal relationship with doctors giving patients the information they need in order to make their own informed decisions. But when it comes to end-of-life decision making the relationship is far from equal: patients are still disempowered. A 'good death' is one which complements rather than clashes with our vision of ourselves. Because we are all individuals, we must be allowed to make choices about what for each of us, is a good death. This requires a two-way dialogue with our doctors, where our wishes about our own lives are respected. Doctors must realise that where they are unable to cure, they must offer acceptable alternatives - alternatives which are acceptable to us. The desire to have control over our lives is a fundamental part of our humanity. In 2001 VES (Voluntary Euthanasia Society) was nominated for the Liberty/Justice Human Rights Award, for our work in furthering the human rights of the terminally ill. The problem with the current law is that it does not work, and vulnerable people are not protected. Everyone knows that doctors help people to die even though it is against the law. For example, in a recent survey 4% of UK doctors admitted to assisting in a patient's suicide, although the real figure is likely to be much higher. Additionally doctors hasten patients' deaths and hide behind the doctrine of double effect. Each year 'mercy killing' cases are brought to court but juries refuse to convict, or when they do judges only give suspended sentences. Without legal safeguards there is little protection here for vulnerable people. The last country which conducted a full inquiry into end-of-life decisions was Belgium. Belgium discovered it had five times the amount of non-voluntary euthanasia as the Netherlands, where assisted dying is strictly regulated. The Belgian Senate has now voted to legalize voluntary euthanasia because it recognizes regulation is the best way to protect the vulnerable. In legal terms, the UK lags far behind the rest of Europe. While most European countries distinguish 'murder' from cases where the person asks for assistance to die, the concept of 'homicide with consent' does not exist in English law. In most of Europe, assisting in the suicide of a terminally ill adult is not a crime. Terminally ill adults have the right to be treated as equals, and we should all be allowed to choose a good death." No, I don't mind long replies. (smile) It's better than short ones, anyway. I guess that's it for now. Thank you and good day.