Euthanasia should be legalized

I also thank CON for the response, and will use the quote from Brock in case viewers do not read the comments; 'The central ethical argument for voluntary euthanasia " that respect for persons demands respect for their autonomous choices as long as those choices do not result in harm to others " is directly connected with this issue of competence (cp. Brock 1992) 1. Immoral Defining the purpose of pain does not aid the argument that it should be endured. My conception of the Harm principle is one articulated by John Stuart Mill who suggests: "The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. " Irving Kristols argument is very hard to counter, however I believe he grips these hypothetical examples too strongly, and ignores Human nature, especially in the 'playwright' example. Common sense would suggest even if there were people willing to commit suicide directors, other actors, would not want to participate in such an event. I believe in this modern-age people would rather watch American Idol than people fight brutally to the death, we have other forms of entertainment which arguably the ancient civilizations didn't have. We are not encouraged to be brought up as warriors but as human beings, one which differs further into the past you go, so i believe his Yankee stadium argument is irrelevant. To the examples you suggest, I do not think its possible to group them altogether as a collective summary of my moral values. 'persons demands respect for their autonomous choices as long as those choices do not result in harm to others'. Why Gay Marriage is even in there I will never know, Love is bigger than government. I believe Kristol is correct when saying 'We all believe that there is some point at which the public authorities ought to step in to limit the "self-expression" of an individual or group'. I believe its not as black and white as you may think I think it is. I do not condone cannibalism, beastiallity, dueling/fights to the death and allowing all weapons of any kind to be legal because this ignored common sense, and popular judgement. You cannot cloud the idea of free-choice to be subjected to activities which harm/could harm others. Human common sense and nationwide/state-wide consensus would be needed. The moral argument for Voluntary Euthanasia is not as simple that it can be applied to Cannibalism or others you suggest and it is regressive to do so. Jesse Ventura: 'How can you commit a crime against yourself? ' 2. Subjectivity 'The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain' is subject to the patient and not to the doctor. Any person with the thought of suicide is already experiencing unbearable pain and therefore the quote: "The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain" is insignificant because requesting euthanasia suggests this anyway. I believe the death of a family member should be consulted with the family before the procedure is taken place because 1. It may reinforce families 'unspoken love' for the family member and therefore may prevent the euthanasia, and 2. If somebody was put to rest without the family being told, this would be subject to anger at doctors/nurses. If the choice of one is to die, and has no way of reconsidering, I believe an honest family would accept his/her decision. I am not saying if the family disagrees with the procedure it cannot be done. The choice ultimately resides with the patient. But with such an extreme request I do think it is important to tell any family members. Its much easier to make euthanasia illegal but much more right to make it legal. 3. Right to Die Just because the supreme court disagrees doesn't make it a correct decision. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act suggests Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 'Private Life' has come under immense scrutiny; but the ECHR (European court of Human Rights) suggests explicit suggestions behind 'Private life' are: Bodily integrity " Article 8 will come into play if someone is forced to have medical treatment or if he or she is forcibly restrained. Personal autonomy " this means the right to make decisions about how you lead your life. People have tried to argue that the right to smoke cannabis is an issue of personal autonomy and should therefore be protected by Article 8 but the courts have not been prepared to accept this. Is forcing someone to bear the pain and live with treatment instead of allowing them to die by their wish a restriction of a Human Right? I know I use the European Human Rights in this argument, but this is because it highlights my point, plus when discussing Euthanasia, I feel European (mostly westernized countries) Human Rights could be incorporated into a Universal discussion. Forcibly restraining a patient from demands for death is just as immoral as some would suggest letting the patient die. However, at least when you let a patient die they have been given a choice and have used it, instead of disallowing a choice to be expressed which I feel is incredibly immoral. 4. Slipper Slope In this case it is easy for PRO to debate because on the face of it, yes, it is killing infants, it isn't voluntary on their behalf, and the same goes for abortion. However PRO and for many people who are against abortion and I assume pro-life I feel their is a consistent lack of sympathy for both the parents and the infants, in replacement for what is taught to be 'right'. In the Groningen Protocol, despite its horrible outcomes, is inevitably the correct decision for both parties. This will always be a disagreement but I think PRO and I must accept that we will never agree on this. 5. Voluntary? For one it is not the doctor who is killing them, this is an insensitive use of words. My answer to: Why do they need the ability for a doctor to kill them before families pay attention? Is that families may not know the suffering their family member is enduring, they might not be aware that he/she wants to die. Making it legal wouldn't make families care more, but making it legal would lead to more people requesting the right to die and therefore families would be involved more in order to question the patients right, or to express greater love before the person passes. The request of euthanasia to those who aren't 'burdens' would be responded with lots of reasoning for why the patient is not a burden and will help amend the person's stress and realize he/she is not a burden. In Nazi Germany the justification was never suggested to be that their being killed was in their best interests; rather, it was said that society would be benefited, this cannot be seen today. Pain Relief. Who's to say they don't feel good? In their minds death can be the only relief. Who is to say that death is not the same as medicinal treatment. Curing, or fixing a patients problem is the right thing to do. Why, if the patient requests it, is denying the patient his/her plead for death not the same as denying the patient the medicinal treatment he desires? This compassionate caring would be enhanced if the patient was serious about euthanasia. My argument persists that in the matter of Euthanasia, the choice of death should be one given to the patient. Of course I understand the problems governments face when creating such legislation, but the bottom line is that it is correct to do so, so the government should do all it can to ensure that this choice is given to the patient.