we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives

can demarcate when someone is in 'terminal and tortured pain'. this wouldnt allow for back pain. or slight pain at terminal stage. The purpose that people want to end their life is due to loss of meaning. aka their lives have lost their meaning. This is why you see suicide rates high among people with depression. This is the same case as in euthanasia. It's not the physical pain that's causing them to suffer in most cases, but it's their lack of will which stems from the fact that they burden their family and friends with many different factors, none of which the patient has control over (sorry for long run-on.) To differentiate which one is actually suffering to the terminal degree of being deemed worth to be killed is controversial and is a HUGE grey area. How can one possibly determine, guy A is suffering more than guy B?Even if pain was a major factor in euthanasia, there is no way to gage the pain. The only possiblity that I can think of is asking the patient on a scale of 1-10. If he says 1 the first time, it wouldnt seem right for the doctor to say, oh youre not suffering enough cause who is to judge who is suffering and who isnt? Moreover, even if he can say oh a pain scale of 1 is not enough to be euthanized, the patient can wait another day or two and say that his pain worsed. He can lie due to finacial burdens or other environmental burdens that was indirectly placed on him. There is no way to justify who is suffering and who is not. You criticize me that im just listing negative points, yet you offer no credible solution to it. All you say is, "Oh we'll just make a broad law that covers every aspect." Because it's soo easy to come up with laws. Just like the Affordable Healthcare Act. We all know that it only took 30 minutes to make and we all know that it solved all our medical problems. Because, you know, it's easy making laws dealing with rights. i dont know how you say laws are definite. some of the biggest reasons for a jury is tha tlaws are not definite. besides figuring out what happened, they determine things like whether a peson's actions were 'reasonable' or what level say of murder someone should be at. these are subjective a lot of time.Thank you for conceding to my point. The whole fact that laws can be subjective suggests that there is no plausible way to solve all of euthanasia problems. I was stating that laws are definite in the fact that, they are absolute, to amend a law would be very hard to pass. Even if a law was amended, the time between admendments would be soo long that so many innocent lives would be lost. Of course according to you, this is fine because we justfity that all those that die were suffering, right?in a way, it doesnt matter. it's not like a law against it is going to stop someone from killing thmself. what are you going to do, put them in prison?Throughout this "debate" you brought no evidence or make no convincing argument to your case. This last statement not only contradicts your "law" rebuttal, but also suggests that you agree with suicide in general.A helpful hint, if youre gonna make a debate about moral rights, maybe you should refer to some moral theories to augment your argument. You may want to check out James Rachels, Socrates, and Immanual Kant.